[Tagging] cyclist profiles - was:Feature Proposal - RFC - value 'basic_network' - cycle_network?

[JochenB]

Am 02.12.2021 um 02:38 schrieb stevea:
> Road networks are simple in concept and let's face it, have their complexities in reality.  I speak of "the world's bicycle network" in an abstract concept when I call it "relatively simple."  That's because the idea of them, their ideal, is a napkin-sized sketch just about everyone can get their head around.  They must be this relatively simple, or they will not be utilized, certainly not utilized to their full potential (or even close).
>
> A system too opaque to explain will not be used as intended.  We need both:  good intention, stated as a clear concept as well as the nuts and bolts to implement it.  I'm still not yet done with the first part, the concept.


The basis_network is not yet adequately described in the proposal. Here
in the discussion, however, it was well summarized: A network of paths
that was defined as a recommended cycling network / hiking network by an
official signpost.

If people from other countries cannot imagine that, it will be because
there is no such thing there. The concept is not mine and has nothing to
do with OSM. Every German federal state and many municipalities have
described it in their cycle traffic concepts, the network there is
called "cycle traffic network". The situation is similar in some
neighboring countries.

Nobody in the German forum asked what the Basic Network is. The only
question was how do we tag this. We're just looking for a key to
differentiating this from route recommendations. In that sense, I've got
my doubts as to whether this list is the perfect place to discuss it.