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

[Brian M. Sperlongano]

Thanks for a thoughtful response.  You've used the term "layer" several
times, but I'm not sure what that means -- perhaps some hierarchy of cycle
routes that exists in Germany?

My current understanding from this discussion, and the proposal writeup --
and please correct me if I am not articulating this correctly --  is that
there are three kinds of cycle routes in Germany:

1. Routes which are "named" (or possibly numbered / signed / blazed)
2. Routes which are not named but are signposted as a bicycle route, which
are being referred to as a "basic network"
3. Routes which are neither named nor signposted.

However, the original announcement states that the purpose of the proposal
is "to distinguish nameless connections in the cycle / hiking trail network
from named routes and numbered node network connections"

So I am confused as to whether "basic network" refers to some
distinguishing characteristic or designation of unnamed bicycle routes, or
whether it is a general or perhaps legal term that is being applied to ANY
bicycle route which lacks a name.

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.
>

Could you please describe why this is urgent?  Is there a specific data
consumer need which is currently unmet which demands that we differentiate
the "basic network" from some other unnamed cycle routes?

'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).
>

If a route is *numbered*, then this is easy - that's what the ref tag is
for.


> 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 'p= yes' there.


It is no problem to add tagging tagging such as osmc:symbol or colour to
indicate that a trail is symbolically marked.

Through this discussion I am still unfortunately left lacking in
understanding the purpose of "basic network" tagging, and I would have no
idea what specific features might qualify to have this tagging in my own
country.  I am certain that we could find examples of bicycle paths which
are unnamed in the United States.  They may or may not have signs that
indicate the direction to various destinations.  How would I assess that a
bicycle path is part of the "basic network" and not just an "ordinary"
bicycle path?

Also, there was some discussion previously that a bicycle path could be
tagged as part of the "basic network" on a temporary basis until it can be
more properly added to a route relation.  If the purpose of this tagging is
solely as a temporary placeholder, then I would not think it appropriate to
approve such tagging as we should not be promoting temporary tagging.

I apologize again in advance for what is probably a cultural
misunderstanding of the "basic network" concept, but I am still left with
the impression that such features can be adequately tagged with existing
tagging for cycle routes and cycleways, including the noname=* tag and the
network=*cn tagging.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20211114/8d4eeee6/attachment.htm>