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

[Sebastian Gürtler]

Am 17.11.21 um 10:31 schrieb Peter Elderson:
> Ok, thanks so far, JochenB.
> Is this correct: A cycle network of this size (all of Germany) cannot
> fit into a single relation, so it is a hierarchy of network relations.
> The lowest level contains the route relations. The junctions where
> routes happen to cross each other, are the start/end points of the
> routes.
>
> The main purpose of the system is to show cyclists the designated
> cycling ways (win-win for traffic control and for the cyclist) and
> give them clear destination-based directions. Which does not have to
> concern mappers, because mappers can just map what they see (given
> knowledge of the German ways) and it will fit in. Except... how it
> fits into the network hierarchy, that is not every mapper's cup of tea.
>
> I think this German integrated guidepost system is great for cyclists,
> once you get the hang of it!
>
> The purpose of mapping it all in this way is another thing.
>
> The purpose of rendering. OpenCycleMap shows routes (route relations
> containing ways), I think? To my understanding, the membership of the
> route relation is converted to an attribute of the way, and that is
> used to determine how it is rendered. If that is how it's done, the
> network relations are not used for rendering. I know OsmAnd doesn't
> use the network- and route relations in themselves for rendering (nor
> for routing).
> My understanding is that for rendering, a tag on the way is easier and
> quicker than membership of a relation. Correct?
>
> The purpose of routing then. Again, I am far from an expert, so I will
> probably (hopefully) be set straight! My understanding is that routing
> is in the end also based on attributes of the ways. The router chooses
> ways and assigns weights to ways, according to the routing profile,
> and calculates which way is the best way to continue the trip. I know
> that it's a lot more complicated, but the point is, it's way-based,
> and tags on the ways are easier to process than membership of a
> relation. Correct?
>
> The purpose of trip planning then. Yes, this may involve routing, but
> it is not the same! Node Network planning is: chaining predetermined
> routes together to form the itinerary of the trip. No way-based
> routing involved there. The user selects the labeled Nodes
> corresponding to the Network Nodes found on junctions; the software
> chains the sections together and the result is a list or strip of Node
> labels telling the traveler exactly where to go at each Network Node.
> This Node Network system is aimed at guiding the traveler along ways
> and routes that a router would not choose. It's not a how-to-get-there
> system, it's a what-would-you-like-to-see system, and that's why it's
> worth it to do all the mapping work involved.
>
> Maybe I am missing important purposes here?
The system of the german bicycle network aims as well at trip planning
for leisure purposes (they call that "Routenorientierte
Wegweisung"/route orientated guideposting - the route itself is the aim)
as well at "how-to-get-there" (called "Zielorientierte
Wegweisung"/destination orientated guideposting) and try to integrate
that in one system. The infrastructure for the latter is still quite
under construction - fast bicycle ways and so on.
> In this basic_network case, I would like to know why it is worth doing
> all this mapping and building such an elaborate system of relations on
> top of the ways.
>
Concerning the rendering you already got some answers.
waymarkedtrails.org seems to use only the relations and ignores
completely ways - practically I only use waymarkedtrails not the
opencyclemap. The information about the infrastructure of a way is quite
useless on longer distances for you have to check the map til the end,
whether the infrastructure is interrupted. And you have sometimes a lot
of possibilities which route you could take, sometimes cycle lanes plus
allowed use of the footpath. Which of these would belong to the network,
which one you would tag with a network tag.

The mapping at last is a bit work, but it is far more hazzle to keep the
orientation in the huge collections of ways. And I would have to check
always the changesets and history if I want to check whether the tagging
is up to date, if I don't use a relation where I could put the
information easily. I never felt that it is too complicated or
elaborated. I shrank the relation "Radverkehrsnetz NRW Bielefeld" from
1152 members of type way to 235 members (still some ways existent at
places where construction sites interrupt routes).

> A different question: am I correct that this system specifically
> targets cycling?
I personally speak mainly about cycling. But I've been lately in the
alps in Switzerland, there would fit the concept of the basic_network
very well for hiking.
> I know in places, the integrated guidepost system is also applied to
> hiking/walking but I think waymarking with e.g. a green or red "walk
> here" sign between guideposts is not that common.
>
> Fr gr Peter Elderson
>
Greetings, Sebastina
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20211117/bbe4a318/attachment-0001.htm>