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

[stevea]

To hear these statements of "here is how I/we 'feel' these "groupings of ways" feel to you is helpful!

You do point out a specific use case (purely touristic maps can hide pure basic network routes in order to focus on route recommendations).  That is actually quite revealing (at least to me) in understanding a further purpose of yours (and likely others geographically closer to you).  Having good nuts and bolts that we all agree on will do that.  OSM strives to reach the entire globe and "Europe and the rest of the world nod our heads" is top shelf methodology, so let's do that.  There is a "thing to unravel" and we unravel.

These are a verifiable "set" of signposts (which might aggregate together into "a big route" or better-stated, a "network of routes together"), right?  But they "mean" (infer?) a sign-based-destination "set of routes" or "network of ways" that imply "better for bikers and hikers."  Right?  I'm sharpening focus on my lens here and asking for words in return.  Thank everybody for using English here, I know that can be challenging.

Regarding questions of how we denote "commuting cycle routes as different" makes me say "denote, what, now?"  And different from what?  (Unstated assumptions make me say "stop and back up").  Before we invent a tag, I think we might agree on what it denotes.  Put together with words and a developed concept, there might be a proposal that is written.  There appears to be some "skip ahead" or "haven't put it all together yet," I understand that.  This isn't always easy!

There are a lot of the right pieces here.  They appear to be "being put together right now, not quite fully."  OK.  It remains "further ahead to a finish line."  I can see it, though.  There continues to appear to be some design and development ahead, I'm not sure if in the concept department or the words / language department.  But it bursts forward, clearly!

See, there are "what if we assume (routes not specifically denoted will "mean" tourist route)..." already at-play here, where the author "concedes" to do things in a certain way, with quickly-traded suggestions that start as assumptions starting to be established.  This could be looked at as a forward burst, it could look like assumption or hubris or "too much decision by one person."  Though, there is nothing wrong with one person having and developing a solid idea and moving forward in OSM to implement it, we are fertile ground for that and have many examples!  We also are constantly looking over our own shoulders as we do so, that's part of how this works.  We do it "out in the open" right here.

"Talking (typing) out loud" where at times our inner monologue can take over! can result in messy sausage-making like this.  It isn't always pretty.  We can do this, we continue to climb a ladder here.  I think OSM is OK here.

> On Dec 5, 2021, at 4:57 PM, JochenB <JochenB at wolke7.net> wrote:
> 
> Am 30.11.2021 um 09:00 schrieb Volker Schmidt:
>> At the risk of repeating myself: can we acknowledge that having
>> different tagging for commuting cycle routes as opposed to touristic
>> cycle routes would be a big advantage for routing/navigation?
> 
> Auf jeden Fall!
> 
> 
>> And can we acknowledge that de facto in many European countries and in
>> the US the existing cycle routes in OSM are mostly touristic? Hence
>> can we agree on a different tagging scheme for commuting cycle routes?
> 
> So will it be. If nothing else is noted on a relation, it will be a
> tourist route.
> 
> The aim of the proposal was, however, one level of abstraction higher.
> The basic network is not primarily aimed at commuters. It is aimed at
> cyclists / hikers in general. It is just the statement: These ways are
> officially part of the cycling network / hiking network. Here you can
> count on better conditions than on ways that are not part of the network.
> 
> These paths should be preferred in the bicycle / hiker routers. They
> should be shown in General Cycle Maps, but different from tour
> recommendations. Purely touristic maps can hide pure basic network
> routes in order to focus on route recommendations.
> 
> The purpose of the network is to encourage bicycle traffic. It is not
> clear whether it was created for everyday traffic, tourist traffic or sport.
> 
> The hiking network will probably always be tourist or medical.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging