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

[Peter Elderson]

Maybe my misunderstanding - I thought cycle_network=<ref or code> denotes a
collection of individual routes such as numbered or named routes between
and along deliberately picked locations. So they resemble themed routes,
together covering a certain area with a specific type of routes, where the
main idea is that you pick one route and follow that. Not hard
infrastructure, although the operator would probably call it a network
infrastructure!

As I understand it, the idea here is to tag all the connections between all
the guideposts as route relations. All other higher order routes and
networks could then e.g. re-use these chunks for their own purpose. Is that
the idea? I am still searching for purpose.

Vr gr Peter Elderson


Op ma 15 nov. 2021 om 21:42 schreef stevea <steveaOSM at softworkers.com>:

> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20211115/cff6dfa3/attachment.htm>