[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - value 'basic_network' for keys 'network:type', 'lcn' and 'lwn'

[JochenB]

Dear all,

I would like to put my proposal for discussion to distinguish nameless
connections in the cycle / hiking trail network from named routes and
numbered node network connections.

I suggest the following three tags for the nameless connections in the
basic network:
'network:type=basic_network'
for use at relations of type route
'lcn=basic_network' / 'lwn=basic_network'
for temporary use on the ways as long as no route relation has been
created yet.

Here is the link to the proposal, written in english and german:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_feature/basic_network

In the german forum we had various discussions on how to distinguish them.

At first we thought about using relations with 'type=network' and
'route=bicycle' for the rest of the network. Thus they would be
distinguishable from the relations with 'type = route', which are used
for named routes. However, this does not fit with the other use of the
network relations.

Most popular was the idea of ​​tagging the nameless connections in a
similar way to the numbered node networks (cycling by numbers). In
numbered node networks, the connections are mapped using the relations
'type=route' with 'network:type=node_network'. Similarly, I would like
to suggest using relations with 'type=route' and
'network:type=basic_network' for connections without their own name or
symbol.

I look forward to your advice or questions on the wiki talk page.

Regards,
JochenB

(I apologize for the google-translated english)