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

[stevea]

Thank you for the update, JochenB.  I do look forward to the "adequate description in the proposal."  It isn't surprising to me that something which already exists (both in reality and in the mindset of people who find it IN that reality, in their region) doesn't need explaining, and that nobody (in Germany) questioned it as "difficult to understand, please explain this more clearly."

Yet (I don't want to repeat too much):  for others, in other cultures, where we do not have this, we DO ask for this "adequate description."  I don't believe this is too much to ask.  I do believe that "using words" (rather than vagueness,  analogies about swimming, "well, we have one here...") is the only way to do this.  It seems we agree and the development of these words / this proposal continues.  Fine and thank you.

A "network of paths recommended by official signposts" is nicely succinct and remains in good stead (in my mind) as a presently-rough sketch to define "basic network."  Thank you for that.  Focus does sharpen.

However, your last paragraph below says that you want to differentiate "basic network" from "route recommendations," yet you say that "basic network" IS a "route recommendation."  Am I getting that wrong?  Is a "network of paths" somehow distinct from a "route" (whether recommended or not?)

(I think it was good of us to take a few days of relative quiet here as a "cool down.")

We seem to be well on our way to proving that anything that REQUIRES understanding can (eventually), with clear communication, EVENTUALLY be understood by others.  Sometimes that takes a great deal of effort and patience, like here.  (And we're not done yet).  Again, I am appreciative of the efforts and patience extended.


On Dec 5, 2021, at 3:56 PM, JochenB <JochenB at wolke7.net> wrote:
> 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.