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

[Sebastian Gürtler]

Am 16.11.21 um 02:32 schrieb 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.
>
For a better understanding I'd like to explain it a bit different:

In the last two decades the state Germany tries to unify the signposting
of an official bicycle network. There are also some special legal issues
in it so not every existing bicycle route is suitable to be integrated
into this network but the official aim is to include as many
pre-existing routes as possible. The whole network should use the simple
bicycle-arrows for all routes, named or unnamed. It shall use
destination information at any branch. Named routes shall be indicated
only at branches with added signs. These rules are still not completely
followed.

This means that except at the branches or at places with destination
signs the routes according to 1 and 2 usually have the identical route
markers. I agree with Jochen that 3 should not occur in OSM - there are
many additional recommendations for routes that are not visible in the
real world made up by different private and public agencies... That
results in a very chaotic and not maintainable network.

(There are still routes that don't follow these rules. These mainly long
distance national and international routes, old local routes and some
routes made by non governmental organizations.)

I think instead of the basic_network tag it may be possible to use
cycle_network=DE:xyz (unique tag like "official" or just the code for
the state signalling that it is the governmental network) and
noname=yes. This also implies the possibility to create basic routes
just by tagging cycle_network=DE:xyz without using a name=* tag which I
would prefer because the network system is changed quite frequently and
new named routes are added (it is very simple, they just add route logos
to the direction signs). So one doesn't need to remove possible
noname=yes tags on the way if a new named route is made up.

Sebastian

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20211116/f89b5cf9/attachment-0001.htm>