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

[stevea]

OK, if there are "1)" (conflicting taggings), then fix / harmonise this tagging.  That might seem ambitious, but I'm certain it could be done.  You'd be undoing damage to the values of a tag, not re-inventing what appears to be a correct (or even THE correct) tag mechanism for what you are trying to do — it already seems to exist as cycle_network=*, but you say that it has been "misused" (or poorly coordinated in Germany).  I don't point any fingers of blame here, OSM is a big project with "many chefs baking the pie," but when such blurring occurs, it isn't correct to re-invent the wheel when there is a wheel that seems to do what you wish right now.

The tag does allow for a route to be a member of multiple networks, simply semicolon (;) separate the values for as many values as the route is a member.

This seems like the correct solution, but it has been "muddied" in Germany.  (I've sort of been watching the taginfo values in Germany over the years as I've mildly updated the cycle_network wiki page, but I agree with you that it seems messy — and from California, I seriously lack the insight of the specifics of what is needed to fix these.  However, the GENERAL concepts of implementing the apparently-multiple-hierarchies that would be required in the "value side" of what Germany's cycle_network tags might become someday (it seems like a medium-large project, but not so huge is can't be done) — well, the cycle_network tag seems very well-suited:  it is hierarchical, allows multiple values and fits in perfectly with the semantics you wish to capture.

SteveA

> On Nov 15, 2021, at 12:27 PM, Sebastian Gürtler <sebastian.guertler at gmx.de> wrote:
> 
> Am 15.11.21 um 20:59 schrieb stevea:
>> I'm at least mildly surprised that cycle_network [1] hasn't been yet mentioned in this thread.
>> 
>> The "keystone" understanding / take-away from this key (tag) is the final sentence of its Rationale section:
>> 
>> "Ideally, all route relations in a single cycleway network should be tagged with the same cycle_network=* value."
>> 
> 
> You are right. The difficulty is that there are
> 
> 1) some conflicting taggings that are used in Germany for cycle_network=*
> 
> 2) the fact that there are routes that are part of several networks
> depending on how to define a network
> 
> one has to decide either to replace existing cycle_network=* tags, which
> should have a broad consent to avoid edit wars, or to create complete
> new relations with the taggings. (or introduce multiple tags for the key
> cycle_network=*)
> 
> For example some would say there is a "node network Münsterland"
> combining nodes from several districts. In East Westphalia the relations
> are collected in virtual district networks Networks "district Herford,
> Town of Bielefeld, District Lippe" and so on. There is a relation
> "Hauptroutennetz Essen" = "network of main bicycle routes Essen" a
> relation "R-Radwegenetz NRW" mainly abandoned but some parts are still
> existent. Many of these networks are mainly historical but sometimes
> still preserved in some districts and fully or partial integrated into
> the actual official bicycle network.
> 
> Sebastian
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging