[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - value 'basic_network' - cycle_network?

Wed Dec 1 23:11:06 UTC 2021

How is the new mean and lean proposal coming, which just proposes a tag to
be applied to either ways or route relations, to indicate that the ways or
routes are visibly and verifyable marked als Officially Approved And
Signposted To Guide Cyclists To The Next Guidepost, Where They Shall Find
Another Clue?

BTW Nederland has those, but it would not be practical to map them because
you can basically cycle anywhere you want and almost all major junctions
have guideposts giving destinations, without intermediary shields telling
you where all cyclists should go.

Peter Elderson

Op wo 1 dec. 2021 om 23:55 schreef JochenB <JochenB at wolke7.net>:

> Am 01.12.2021 um 21:44 schrieb stevea:
>
> On Dec 1, 2021, at 12:27 PM, JochenB <JochenB at wolke7.net> <JochenB at wolke7.net> wrote:
>
> Am 28.11.2021 um 20:45 schrieb Brian M. Sperlongano:
>
> So is "basic" in this case of bwn/bcn supposed to mean "more local
> than local"?
>
> A distinction between local and regional makes no sense here. The
> networks of various cities (lcn), districts and federal states (rcn)
> together result in hundreds of kilometers of nationwide cycle-friendly
> routes (ncn). In most cases, it is not clear to the user who is managing
> the network.
>
> I find "it isn't clear...who is managing the network" to be deeply problematic.  Seriously?  You mean there is nobody to ask "who put up this sign?" or "who do I ask to determine anything authoritatively about these routes / this network?"  That strongly implies anybody could put up a sign (of whatever level, for whatever purpose) and OSM Contributors in Germany would insist we develop tagging strategies to denote...WHAT, exactly?  I don't know, you don't know, it seems NOBODY knows.  If true, this is a major failing.  I simply do not know of a single (signed) bicycle route or bicycle route network in the entirety of the USA where this is true, and that's a LOT of routes and networks.  There is ALWAYS "somebody to ask" EXACTLY who is "managing the network."
>
> Sure you can find out, but it is irellevant for most users. He wants to
> know where the officially signposted cycle network runs (type A). Other
> users want to know where route-oriented tour recommendations go (type B).
> Since the two cannot be distinguished in the maps, we cannot adequately
> satisfy both use cases.
>
> If we set the network tag based on the operator, we raise the importance
> of the operator to the same level as 'network = *' for classic cycle
> routes. There it is used to assess how long and important tour
> recommendations are.
>
> I wanted to show that the length / extent is irrelevant when similar
> networks collide or when the users do not follow a tour but put them
> together individually.
>
> So one solution is to define it all as 'lcn' by definition. It then needs
> to be differentiated from route-oriented tour recommendations with 'network
> = lcn, because that is the motivation of the proposal.
>
> Hence my proposal with 'lcn = basic_network' for tagging on the way and an
> 'xyz = basic_network' for tagging on relations.
>
>
> There may be situations where local and regional networks differ
> outside, e.g. in quality standards (asphalt), then a distinction between
> rcn and lcn makes sense.
>
>
>
> ...  I don't really understand what "basic" brings to the table that
> "local" doesn't.
>
> For me, lcn = yes is the same as network = lcn. Since both are used on
> the same tag for route-oriented signposting, they are unsuitable for
> fulfilling the purpose of the proposal. From my point of view, that says
> it all.
>
> I'm sorry, English is my native language (and I profusely thank all who post here for whom that isn't true), but the second sentence of that made little or no sense to me.  "That" does NOT "say it all," at least to me, and I struggle mightily to parse your sentences (and proposal).
>
> Do you mean "both are used AS the same tag?"
>
> Sorry, that has nothing to do with English, that's nonsense in German too.
> It should be called:
>
> *Since both are used for route-oriented signposting, they are unsuitable
> for fulfilling the purpose of the proposal to distinguish between **route-oriented
> signposting and *
> *the signs for the cycle network *
>
> And what is meant by "route-oriented signposting?"  I am unable to reach your conclusion when I cannot understand its antecedent.
>
>
> Look at this picture:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Guidepost_basic_network_and_node_network_and_route_recommendation.jpg
>
> The destination-oriented route signs framed in blue are important for Type
> A users. There are numerous connections in the network where only this type
> of signposting is available. That's how it is in the German bicycle
> network. Elsewhere, the network could only be marked by a network-wide
> symbol, with no destination-oriented signposting.
>
> Then there are connections in the network through which tour
> recommendations run. This is necessary for Type B users. Their
> route-oriented signposting is outlined in green. From the beginning to the
> end of the route, this symbol is only used for this route. This route
> results in a line or a circle, not a network with other routes with the
> same symbol
>
> In the example there are three routes. Two come from the right, one from
> the left. The signpost in the third direction is hidden behind the mast.
> Presumably all three tours continue in this direction.
> Both routes are tagged with the same scheme. It is indistinguishable from
> each other:
>
> type=route
> route=bicycle
> network=lcn or rcn
>
>
> If lcn = yes is to be used to mark the officially designated cycling
> network, then we are back at the beginning of the discussion. How do we
> differentiate these routes / relations from route-based travel
> recommendations? So a tag is needed again.
>
> With cycle_network.  Its values can include sub-tags (to primary tags that denote geographic regions, as they do in the rest of the world), which identify "this is this (regions, locality's...) PURPOSED network."  (Like commuter, touristic, basic, et cetera).
>
>
> You feel like you keep trying to sell me swimming trunks so that I don't
> have to bathe naked. But I keep telling you that I need a wetsuit that will
> protect me from the cold. Yes, a "wetsuit" also avoids public nuisance, but
> that's not my point. Even if I can pull my swimming trunks up to my
> shoulder and write "wetsuit" on it, I'll be cold.
>
> I will give you to explain that the tag can serve its purpose well, but is
> not very suitable for the purpose of the proposal.
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20211202/ff771552/attachment.htm>