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

[Sebastian Gürtler]

Am 06.12.21 um 09:56 schrieb 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.
>
The manual what is needed is state dependent: e.g. for North
Rhine-Westphalia (NRW): I just put into a translator as I am not able to
translate this special legal German into the prop    er English terms
(as I suspect the translator may also be not...). Published by the
ministry of transport NRW.

Actual rules here: https://www.radverkehrsnetz.nrw.de/rvn_hbr.asp
"Hinweise zur wegweisenden Beschilderung für den Radverkehr" = "Notes on
signposting for cycling traffic"

You have the descriptions of the signs and the concepts here:
https://www.radverkehrsnetz.nrw.de/downloads/HBR_NRW_Kap03_Jul2019.pdf
("Das Wegweisungssystem NRW" = "The signposting system NRW"), Contents
e.g.: "Systematics of signposting: destination-oriented and
route-oriented signposting", "Destination-oriented signposting: Signpost
content, Signpost sizes, Signpost shapes, Selection and order of
destinations", "Route-oriented signposting", "Supplementary orientation
aids: Maps; Integration of local destinations; Guidance on a themed
route; Route km marks on cycling fast links", "Interfaces to other
signposting systems: Adjacent cycling networks, Node system, Mountain
bike signposting"

And on the legal status here:
https://www.radverkehrsnetz.nrw.de/downloads/HBR_NRW_Kap04_Sep2017.pdf
"StVO-Status der Radverkehrswegweisung in NRW" "'Road Traffic Act'
status of cycling signposting in NRW"…

here: Auszug  aus  dem  Erlass  des  nordrhein-westfälischen
Verkehrsministeriums  vom 03.08.2000: "Zur  Ausschilderung  des
landesweiten  Radverkehrsnetzes  sind  wegweisende Beschilderungen
entsprechend dem von der Forschungsgesellschaft für Straßen- und
Verkehrswesen (FGSV) herausgegebenen "Merkblatt zur wegweisenden
Beschilderung für den Radverkehr" auszuführen.
Gemäß  § 46 Abs.  2  der  StVO  erteilte  ich  die  Genehmigung,
abweichend  von  den Regelungen des § 42 Abs. 8 StVO, die Radwegweisung
künftig nach dem o.g. Merkblatt auszuführen. Als Regelfarbe für die
Schrift ist Rot zu verwenden. Die im Merkblatt aufgeführten Wegweiser
unterliegen damit den Regeln der StVO und bedürfen der Anordnung durch
die Straßenverkehrsbehörden."
Der Erlass bezieht sich damit nicht nur auf die Schilder des
Landesweiten Radverkehrsnetzes, sondern auf die gesamte
Radverkehrswegweisung (alle lokalen, regionalen und touristischen
Routenbeschilderungen) in NRW mit entsprechend gestalteten Wegweisern.
(Gilt für alle Wegweisungen nach Merkblatt)

Excerpt from the decree of the North Rhine-Westphalian Ministry of
Transport of 3 August 2000: "For the signposting of the state-wide
cycling network, signposting is to be carried out in accordance with the
"Leaflet on Signposting for Cycling" published by the Road and Traffic
Research Association (Forschungsgesellschaft für Straßen- und
Verkehrswesen, FGSV).
Pursuant to § 46 (2) of the StVO, I hereby grant permission, in
deviation from the provisions of § 42 (8) of the StVO, to implement the
bicycle signposting in future in accordance with the above-mentioned
information sheet. Red is to be used as the standard colour for the
lettering. The signposts listed in the leaflet are thus subject to the
rules of the StVO and require the order of the road traffic authorities."
The decree thus refers not only to the signs of the state-wide cycling
network, but to all cycling signposting (all local, regional and tourist
route signposting) in NRW with appropriately designed signposts.
(Applies to all signposts according to the leaflet).

StVO=Straßenverkehrsordnung somewhat to be translated as e.g. "Road
Traffic Act".

==

I'll reduce my activity in this discussion for I just haven't that much
spare time for participating adequately in it, still interested in
possible results and consensus.

And I just really recognize that the topic changed.

I am by no means interested in tagging cyclist profiles but simply the
routes I see on the ground. I tried to describe what can be found here,
did some research on the official guidelines (which have much
ambiguities concerning the purpose), and will mainly go on in correcting
the existing mappings in a way that easily allows changing the tagging
to any other scheme, without destroying any existent differentiating
information.

This is not possible with the taggings "network=bcn" for you have to
remove preexisting "network=lcn/rcn" tags. It is also difficult with the
tag cycle_network which is sometimes used but without a clear scheme,
the adding of values with ";" is not really in use here, so it would
raise discussions if I'd start it now.

And - I don't want to wait, for I accumulate the information on the
cycling network at this moment - and I won't ever introduce the
information into the data base if I don't do it now. The map information
is just a side effect of my cycling, nothing more. (Just looked it up:
since 5/20 when I started doing that I rode about 4000 km on these
network routes in my surrounding taking about 3000 photographs of
guideposts and route markers. Not possible for me to go through the data
afterwards...)

A big part in my actual activity: deleting abandoned routes in osm and
unify different taggings for the same kind of routes, which all need a
visit on ground for there are no reliable sources elsewhere. That's my
main reason for the creating of relations: I can tag them with a
survey:date so it is visible for anyone what data is up to date and what
is not. This is not possible (or too much work) with tagging at the ways
for you need a complex scheme for the survey:date to tell which tags you
have surveyed and which not. I usually have node(=branch) to node routes
(sometimes complex sometimes simple) and a relation containing that and
can tell exactly at which time it has been surveyed.

There are a lot of road construction sites, new motorways etc. Anyone
interested in keeping the network up to date can easily check whether
the situation described in the data is already updated or is needing
another survey.

@steve: asking me for a concept... I didn't make the proposal, in fact:
I even have some problems with the concept that the state follows with
its guidelines and signposting, there are sometimes inconsistencies and
additionally slight differences between the states. I think that's one
of the problems that we have with mapping.

But we have an easily visible fact on the ground: a germanwide
recognizable set of specific signs for guiding cycle routes (which we
don't have for hiking, motorized or other traffic), the main part is
just the simple arrows in red or green (depending on the state) which is
used for any official cycling route (and not for additional routes
operated by other public and private institutions).

I don't have a real good concept how to integrate the situation visible
on ground into the osm database: It is ...

... difficult to transform the many preexisting different descriptions
of the same thing into something more uniform

... difficult to integrate the different opinions and views on this (we
have discussions ranging from political via linguistic just to simple
technical aspects on it)

... difficult to cope with still visible overlapping old routes (e.g.
older than 40 years) and the newer guideposting (starting about 20 years
ago) and resulting inconsistencies.

I think the most probable way to cope with it are relations with a tag
in cycle_network that's based on a German wide consensus. (Big
advantage: You won't need nested relations as they are in use in NRW now
- these have in fact the character of collections: The whole network
would be in https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/33216, now aged 13
years, and even then a first try to unify something older).

Sebastian