[Tagging] Cycling infrastructure routes (was Re: cyclist profiles - was:Feature Proposal - RFC - value 'basic_network' - cycle_network?)

[stevea]

Verzig?  Nien.  These things unfold at their own, very human-based, worldwide pace.  Sometimes "things take years."  Maybe we could say that about this, maybe not, it seems like doing that is in our rear-view mirror anyway. We take the time here (with effort and patience, sometimes large amounts!) to "design well."  This is the tagging list.  What we do a good deal of here is answer "how do we sensibly tag?"

The talk about a "new kind of route that is a kind of bicycle net" seems it should start earlier, though.  I'm listening, but there is a "quick-to-dismiss" feeling I get:  too much is being conflated (or fuzzies, is my problem) all of a sudden (in my mind) at that "natural grouping" between

paths (a collection of them, independent of and abstract from any specific datum to represent that),
routes, which are a rather exactly and peculiarly (particularly) specific "things" we (OSM) already utter into our syntax (and ditto from above, in a certain way of looking at things), and
networks (ditto twice).

Let's say that "networks are groupings of routes" as a works-for-now, slightly-blurry-focus definition.  Now, what is the "thing" you are describing?  I realize it may feel like I straightjacket the discussion into "those three roles" (paths, routes, networks).  I need that framework as "basic structure" (of math, of logic, of language, of sanity?) to cling to as you describe "what you've got there" with that framework.  Otherwise, you really spill so far outside of "how we do what we're doing here (in a mapping database that already well-maps logically to paths, routes and networks)" that you must stand rather tall in the language department.  It could even be a sort of mathematical way of explaining it.  We know math.  We understand language (limiting as it can be).

Extending that... (paths, routes, networks) and how the lines blur from there to "extend into something new?"  Well, I'm listening.  There is a lot of (lengthy, though) wide input about how we might best do this.

I know, JochenB, I know.  This can be quite difficult!

> On Dec 5, 2021, at 4:34 PM, JochenB <JochenB at wolke7.net> wrote:
> 
> Am 01.12.2021 um 20:47 schrieb Flips:
>> I like the railway-input from Minh.
>> Separating the net from the routes.
>> I could imagine to continue using route=bicycle as it has been used
>> mostly so far for named or numbered (recreational) routes and
>> introducing route=bicycle_net for the big city or district-networks
>> and route=bicycle_higway for the fast tracks as existing in different
>> places.
>> Like this the network-tag can still be used as before.
> 
> For my proposal I find the idea 'route = bicycle_net' interesting. I had
> neither the idea nor the courage to propose a new type of route.
> Exciting discussion (even if I can only follow up with verzig)!
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging