[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - value 'basic_network' for keys 'network:type', 'lcn' and 'lwn'

[stevea]

On Dec 1, 2021, at 2:37 PM, Sebastian Gürtler <sebastian.guertler at gmx.de> wrote:
> Whether you have distinct
> networks or just independent routes or a mix of both depends on the
> situation in the region. It would be nice to find some tags that could
> be used more generally. At the moment it seems that any country or even
> region has its own schemes. It could be helpful if the new or updated
> definition of the related tags doesn't interfere with the former
> taggings. That would surely improve the acceptance and reduces the risk
> of destroying any relevant existing information.

"Tags that are use more generally" include cycle_network.  The values of this tag NECESSARILY carve up into country-wide namespaces, because each country does things somewhat differently.  So, YES:  "any country or even region has its own schemes."  That is 100% true.  So, DENOTE this (these) with cycle_network=* values appropriate to that country!  (Please.  Already.)

These DO NOT interfere with "former taggings" because (in the country's in question) these do not yet exist, having not yet been developed through suggestion, agreement and hence, consensus.  But, they could.  I believe it would address the issues and have since my first post in the thread.  I do now lean towards supporting an additional value of network (that of "generic" or something like it) which Flips suggests, as it does seem to indicate that "something different" than what already exists is extant.  (Yet, I still struggle to say exactly what this is, I continue to await crisp definitions from the localities / regions where people wish to do this).

Absolutely nothing about these suggestions (including introducing a new value of generic to the network=* key) would increase "risk of destroying any relevant existing information."  In fact, while the creation of a new "bucket" to throw into of routes of network=generic WOULD introduce "something new," it would not hinder any NEW renderer, router or use case from (newly) implementing "what is meant" by the key-value pair of network=generic, and in fact with cleverly / some-might-say-CORRECTLY chosen values for cycle_network, these might actually render (as a particular color, thickness or other graphical-user-interface which could be correlated in a "map key" showing these values.  Heck, you could even place as a label upon all the routes in a network the actual value of cycle_network=*.  But, of course, this would require actually developing those values, something that has yet to be done (so, do so, he strongly hints while repeating himself).