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

[JochenB]

Am 15.11.2021 um 04:37 schrieb Brian M. Sperlongano:
> Thanks for a thoughtful response.  You've used the term "layer"
> several times, but I'm not sure what that means -- perhaps some
> hierarchy of cycle routes that exists in Germany?

Rather, the different types of signage and the associated messages:

* basic_network = destination signposting = message: Here cycling is
officially recommended regardless of the purpose (everyday traffic or
tourist traffic)

* Special routes = symbols = message: officially recommended for certain
applications, e.g. B. for tourist bike tours or to follow certain topics
like "Martin Luther Cycle route"


> My current understanding from this discussion, and the proposal
> writeup -- and please correct me if I am not articulating this
> correctly --  is that there are three kinds of cycle routes in Germany:
>
> 1. Routes which are "named" (or possibly numbered / signed / blazed)
> 2. Routes which are not named but are signposted as a bicycle route,
> which are being referred to as a "basic network"
> 3. Routes which are neither named nor signposted.

To 1) and 2): yes, these are characteristics of these routes. But maybe
the type of signage and the message are the main distinguishing
features, see above.

2) can also have a symbol, but one that is the same for all routes, e.g.
a red bicycle.

I can't imagine 3), we only want to tag what we find outside. There they
would not be recognizable outside.


> However, the original announcement states that the purpose of the
> proposal is "to distinguish nameless connections in the cycle / hiking
> trail network from named routes and numbered node network connections"
>
> So I am confused as to whether "basic network" refers to some
> distinguishing characteristic or designation of unnamed bicycle
> routes, or whether it is a general or perhaps legal term that is being
> applied to ANY bicycle route which lacks a name.

Thank you for pointing this out, I will rephrase that so that it relates
more to the signposting and the layers in the cycle / hiking network.


>     We urgently need uniform tagging with which we can identify a relation
>     in the basic network. The proposal is to use route relations with
>     'network:type=basic_network'. Doing it with 'noname=yes' would not
>     express that and would not be unambiguous.
>
>
> Could you please describe why this is urgent?

We are in the process of making the giant relations with up to 4,000
members manageable again and dividing them into one relation per
connection (see articles by Sebastian G.). On the one hand, this is the
chance to do things better. On the other hand, we needed to
differentiate between ways with only signposts and ways with tourist
cycle routes.


> How would I assess that a bicycle path is part of the "basic network"
> and not just an "ordinary" bicycle path?

You can recognize it by the fact that the path is equipped with bicycle
signposts and is therefore part of an official cycle network. The
signposting in Germany consists of destination signposts at the nodes of
the network and intermediate signposts with small arrows between these
nodes. Both are equipped with a uniform bicycle symbol.

Not only are cycle paths part of the network, but also normal,
low-traffic roads. Not every cycle path has to be included if it is not
connected to the network.


> Also, there was some discussion previously that a bicycle path could
> be tagged as part of the "basic network" on a temporary basis until it
> can be more properly added to a route relation.  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.
Today it is common practice to tag 'lwn=yes' on paths with hiking
routes. This is simple and straightforward and is often enough and can
stay that way.

The wording aimed at the fact that it is OK to transfer a
'lcn=basic_network' on the ways into a relation with
'network:type=basic_network' and thus to take it to the next level. It
would be less nice to delete relations and write it back to the ways.

Maybe I have to rephrase here as well.


> I apologize again in advance for what is probably a cultural
> misunderstanding of the "basic network" concept, but I am still left
> with the impression that such features can be adequately tagged with
> existing tagging for cycle routes and cycleways, including the
> noname=* tag and the network=*cn tagging.

I think that's good. That shows me where I can do better. Thanks for that!

'network=*cn/*wn' describes the extent of the routes or the entire
network. This is something else. I want to express the different types
of signage and the associated messages.

I had already brought my arguments to 'noname=yes'.

b.r.
Jochen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20211116/113629d3/attachment.htm>