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

[JochenB]

Am 13.11.2021 um 23:25 schrieb Brian M. Sperlongano:
> I am confused by this proposal, but it is probably just my lack of
> understanding of the concept or something lost in translation.  It
> seems that the proposal is focused on how to tag a route network that
> does not have a name.  In that case, I would tag a route relation with
> the tags:
>
> type=route
> noname=yes
>
> The noname tag has over half a million usages and is specifically for
> this purpose of indicating that something has been surveyed and is not
> named.

The fact that they do not have a name is a characteristic of the
connections in the basic network, but that is not the core of the
matter. In essence, it is about differentiating between different layers
in the cycling network.

Most German bicycle traffic concepts differentiate between the bicycle
network with signposting as the basic network and the (mostly) tourist
cycle routes that run over it and are marketed. I suspect similar
approaches in other countries

That is why we find a dense network of roads and paths in many German
regions that are recommended for cyclists. These paths can be recognized
by the signposts with a bicycle symbol. The signposts usually indicate
the next place and the next bigger destination. That is the basic layer.
This is our official cycling network. For Example:

* with network-Relation: "Nordfriesland"
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1771415#layers=C

* with route-Relation: "Paderborn" with 4,148 members! 1)
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/222581#layers=C

The (mostly) tourist cycle routes running above are marked by symbols
that are screwed onto the signposts below. These have a name or a
number. This is an overlying layer in the cycling network.

It is difficult to find a suitable term. In German are the
"Radverkehrsnetz" (network) and "Fahrradroute" (route). However, both
are already assigned differently in OSM. Hence the linguistic
distinction based on symbols and names as workaround.

Unfortunately, a renderer cannot recognize whether the route only
depicts a connection with signposts or one of the touristic routes. It
is therefore not possible to display both differently. So the "Havixbeck
Cycle Route F74" goes under in the basic network of the districts of
Münster and Coesfeld.

* "Havixbeck Cycle Route F74":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1698569#layers=C

* Basic network of Münster:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1698569#layers=C

* Basic network of Coesfeld:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2003648#layers=C

We urgently need uniform tagging with which we can identify a relation
in the basic network. The proposal is to use route relations with
'network:type=basic_network'. Doing it with 'noname=yes' would not
express that and would not be unambiguous.

'noname = yes' applies to all connections of the basic network, but it
is also possible that a route above has no name but only a number or a
symbol, e.g. B. inner-city bike routes in Frankfurt am Main, which are
numbered (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1771415#layers=C).

With the hiking network, it will be even more common that a hiking trail
is only defined using the symbol, but does not have an official name.
You could also set 'noname = yes' there.


best regards
Jochen



1) In many regions one is in the process of breaking down these huge
relations into individual connections, e.g. here in Mettmann
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/55602#layers=C or here in
Bielefeld https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/222578#layers=C