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

[Sarah Hoffmann]

Hi,

On Sat, Nov 13, 2021 at 09:11:52PM +0100, JochenB wrote:
> Here is the link to the proposal, written in english and german:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_feature/basic_network
> 
> In the german forum we had various discussions on how to distinguish them.
> 
> At first we thought about using relations with 'type=network' and
> 'route=bicycle' for the rest of the network. Thus they would be
> distinguishable from the relations with 'type = route', which are used
> for named routes. However, this does not fit with the other use of the
> network relations.
> 
> Most popular was the idea of ​​tagging the nameless connections in a
> similar way to the numbered node networks (cycling by numbers). In
> numbered node networks, the connections are mapped using the relations
> 'type=route' with 'network:type=node_network'. Similarly, I would like
> to suggest using relations with 'type=route' and
> 'network:type=basic_network' for connections without their own name or
> symbol.

Switzerland has a network of hiking paths that is very similar to the
concept of the basic network you present here. You can have a look at
it in waymarkedtrails:
https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#?map=11!47.3002!8.5642

All the red lines belong to the network. The ways are consistenly marked
with yellow, red or blue markers in nature. There are guideposts on
many (but not all) crossroads and many of the guideposts (but not all)
even have a name.

When we started mapping this network many years ago, we also thought that
it would be a good idea to model it after the node networks. Use the
guideposts as nodes and map the conections as route relations with
the appropriate osm:symbol. And, voila, you have a network.

It just seemed to be the right thing to do. After all it made the
routes instantly visible on all hiking maps. Ten years into mapping the
network, here is the most important lesson I have learned:

   Using relations to model the network was a Big Mistake.

Relations are complicated to handle. They don't fit the concept. And they
will cause confusion and disputes between mappers. (Feel free to read
the most recent fallout within the Swiss community:
http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/pipermail/talk-ch/2021-June/010972.html
The gist of it is that mappers will try to define routes in the network
leading to different ideas of how the network should be built.)

The concept of the basic network has nothing in common with what we map
as hiking routes (or node networks, for that matter) and
everything with the road network: there is no defined start and end, you
are not supposed to follow any of the way in any given order. You simply
have a network of roads which connect all the important places. Sure, they
are on top of an existing (car) road network. But that's a detail. There
are destination signs that occasionally tell you where to go but they
just give a direction. The given destinations are not meant to be followed
to the end.

We model the road network with ways with a highway=* tag. That is simple
and works extremely well. For the guideposts we have
destination relations. I strongly recommend to do exactly the same for
cycling/hiking. Invent a new tag bike_way=primary/secondary/whatever
and pedestrian_way=primary/secondary/whatever and put that on the
roads where the basic network goes over. Use the existing destination
relations for the guideposts and you have everything in your infrastructure
that you need.

Sarah