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

[Peter Elderson]

Brian M. Sperlongano:

> 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 think: where the preference is signed with the red or green bicycle sign
(these are the two variants I have encountered in Germany; I know Belgium
has a comparable sign), it is verifiable and could be tagged on the way. If
a chain of ways is signed and tagged with this preference, you could say
it's a route.
However, if the only purpose of the route relation is to mark its members
as preferential cyclable ways, I think tagging the ways themselves is
enough; any data user could use that preference tag for rendering and
routing.

The instances of preferred-cycle-signs I know are not linked to any
particular named route, themed route or Node network connection. At most,
they sort of say "all cycling routes and destinations are supposed to take
this path or this turn".

Apart from the practical problems of determining/verifying where the
proposed "basic network"-routes start, go and end, I am still trying to
understand what the use case/added value is of creating a network of all
cyclable ways of a certain quality.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20211115/c8991fd9/attachment.htm>