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

[stevea]

Thank you for a thoughtful and quite complete reply, Sebastian!

>> This seems like the correct solution, but it has been "muddied" in Germany.
> ;-) That's my impression too. It is no surprise that there is no German page for the cycle_network-key and that the key cycle_network isn't mentioned at all neither in the German instructions for the tagging of bicycle routes nor for bicycle networks. (Only suggestion is to use network=lcn/rcn ... which is not really useful for the     germanwide network with very local aspects...)

Yes, the differences in how "wiki is done in one region and/or language..." versus another region and/or language make issues like this much more common in OSM than I would like.  I haven't really known how to address what I added in the cycle_network wiki under "Germany" (that "Many existing values can become the same values preceded with DE: or other similar harmonizations. For example, radrevier.ruhr...") might someday "discover its proper people" who would implement this in Germany.  Some good news is that my additional suggestion right after this of "Try clicking the taginfo link, then values in the leftmost column and finally the Overpass turbo link to display the subsets" remains valid and informative:  I just tried this zoomed into central Germany (one will need to increase timeout values for wide zooms) and found that assigned values for cycle_network in Germany do distinctly "cluster" together.  So, again, while it might be a "big and chewy" task to unravel a "good, better or even best" way to realign cycle_network tagging in Germany, it doesn't seem so big that one person or a small team would choke on it.  It appears to be solvable, although from personal experience (at coordinating national-level bicycle routing and networks, especially in OSM with its tagging), coordinating with mappers from other German states and even a national-level government official (at what they might like to see as "rather well-designed and perhaps even futuristic!") can really go a long way.

>> (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.
>> 

> Thanks for your encouraging...

You are welcome!  I (we in OSM) certainly do try to do my/our best at worldwide coordination, but language issues, wiki being "only looked at in English" (or in the UK and USA and English-speaking countries only...) sorts of issues do make this more difficult than it should be.  I'm glad to see this good discussion perhaps yielding some real progress here, it gives me hope that if this (cycle_network tagging "betterment") can happen in Germany (and I truly hope it does), it can happen anywhere!
> 
> <Beispiel_Zwischenwegweiser_Radverkehrsnetz_NRW.jpg> (can also be green) and the same guideposting system. 

Not having seen these before and not reading German, (though this sign with simply a bicycle glyph and an arrow is 100% language-less), my interpretation of what this might mean is "if I am a bicyclist, I should follow this arrow to ride on infrastructure which is 'more suitable' for bicycles."  Its intent of what it DOES or MIGHT mean could be something wholly different, and for that I apologize for what is essentially simple cultural ambiguity as to "what signage is supposed to denote."  I'd be supportive to do what we say in [1] for these here in the USA, which is to "...if this sign (is) seen...without labeling or numbering of routes, OSM ways so signed as local bike routes should be tagged lcn=yes, either directly or as members of a network=lcn relation tagged lcn=yes."  Routes so denoted render nicely in the three major bicycle routing renderers I use to display bike routes in OSM (OpenCycleMap.org, waymarkedtrails.org and cyclosm.org).

> They are easily recognizable and include unnamed routes. At least for these Jochen suggested the tag basic_network.

We have the same concept in USA for "unnamed routes," where a simple green sign with a bicycle glyph and the words "Bike Route" [1] denote not necessarily infrastructure (like a "Class I" dedicated cycleway separated from automobile traffic, or painted lines two meters wide from a kerb to denote a "Class II" cycle lane / bike lane), but rather "this roadway has been decided by local authorities to be 'more suitable' for bicycles, so we put up this green sign to tell you to take THIS road, rather than another parallel road which is less suitable."

SteveA

[1] https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/United_States/Bicycle_Networks#Local