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

[stevea]

To be clear, it is highly useful to (repeatedly, widely...) state that there is:

• bicycle INFRASTRUCTURE tagging, noting dedicated cycleways, painted bike lanes, "routes" where no such additional real infrastructure like specific pavement or paint to designate where cyclists should ride, but the roadway has been determined to be "more suitable" for cyclists... and

• bicycle ROUTE tagging, via a relation containing elements that should or do have bicycle infrastructure tagging noted above placed upon them.  Tens of thousands of routes around the world in OSM have a cycle_network tag, and it is easy to search (e.g. via Overpass) for "all routes with cycle_network=(a particular value)" to identify all routes in any given network — provided the cycle_network=* tag (and a wisely-chosen value) are on each bicycle route relation in that particular network.

I think what Volker mentions here might muddy that concept a bit in how he states this, although I don't think he meant to actively confuse us!  But let's not call "a cycling network" the same thing as "the roadways suitable for bicycles in a certain area."  These are two quite different things.  A local government, for example, might DETERMINE what the roadways suitable for bicycles are, and even explicitly put them into a network (what might be tagged network=lcn).  But let's keep it crystal clear that these are two separate acts and semantics.

SteveA

> On Nov 15, 2021, at 12:15 PM, Volker Schmidt <voschix at gmail.com> wrote:
> To me it looks that the basic cycling "network" consists of the roadways suitable for bicycles in a certain area. In many cases they carry direction signs at crossings.
> That looks to me similar to the situation roads for cars. Some roads are much more suitable only for cars, some are suitable for cars and bicycles, some are exluded for cars (those suitable for foot and cycling). For those roads we have no dedicated network.
> And I not see the need for a network in the bicycle case. After all we talk of a collection of roadways that share some properties.  
> Am I missing something?
>