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

[stevea]

If true, what Martin says here seriously dilutes (in my mind) whatever it is that these signs denote.  Do the signs denote “roads which are suitable” (by pointing “away” from them)?  (For bicyclists and hikers?). Do they denote roads which are MORE suitable?  (By pointing “towards” them?). Is it really true that roads which are NOT so denoted are “LESS suitable” or “NOT suitable?”  (For bicyclists and hikers).  Or not?

“Around here” (in my state and country), I have the right to demand an answer put directly to the (government, organization…) which erected a sign on a public roadway, to the question “What, exactly, does this sign mean?”  And, "who put up these signs?"  And "what is it that THEY claim these signs actually mean?"  Is this written down anywhere?  (In my country, we have MUTCD, the “Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.”  If your sign isn’t in that Manual, it is de facto a “non-standard” sign).  These signs in Germany either ARE or ARE NOT in compliance with Germany’s “signage standards,” whatever those are.  If they ARE in compliance, there is a concrete definition of exactly what it is they denote.  If possible / available, I’d like to read that here, please.

These aren’t such unusual, difficult or “pointed” (unwelcome, especially when asked in an accusatory way, or one which might cause offense) questions, in my opinion.  Besides, when is asking a question (especially in this tagging list, ESPECIALLY in OSM), difficult, unusual, unwelcome or seems to generate a “non-answer” kinds of questions actually wrong?  (I’d say just about never).  We might generate wrong answers or unsatisfactory answers.  Yet, here we don’t seem to receive satisfactory answers at all.  I’ll be generous (I did say these things take time, and they can and do), and say “we aren’t receiving a quick answer.”  Personally, I’m OK with that, as it means the development of whatever tagging might be proposed needs to go back to the drawing board and developed further (concept, definitions, clear descriptions…).  If that takes time, let’s take that time.

> On Dec 6, 2021, at 12:24 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 6 Dec 2021, at 02:01, JochenB <JochenB at wolke7.net> wrote:
>> 
>> 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.
> 
> 
> This is going too far, there is no implication that roads, tracks and paths which are not signed in the basic network are worse for cycling than the signed ones.
> You may assume that the signed ways are suitable for cycling (no guarantee of course), but the absence of such signage doesn’t tell anything, could be suitable just as well.
> 
> Cheers Martin