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

[Peter Elderson]

Sebastian Gürtler :

> 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.
>

The route-oriented guideposting is covered by regular route relations, so
this "basic_network" mapping only targets the destination oriented
guideposting, I think?



> 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.
>
This I don't get. For what purpose do you have to check the map til the
end? Are you planning a route by looking at the lines? AFAIK
Waymarkedtrails does not route and does not let you draw a route.

> 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.
>
That sounds like you could use a routing application like cycle.travel. The
fact that waymarkedtrails, opencyclemap and cycle.travel render route
relations with some form of highlighting, explains why you started to use
route relations as collections to express the preference. The move to
network relations containing all the ways also removes the rendering, but
if at the bottom of the network piramid are route relations, the rendering
is there again.

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
>

Well, that's what they already have, I think, a network of routes, I think
without any network relation. They do have a maintenance problem. A
maintenance tool such as Knooppuntnet (but that's specifically designed for
the pretty well defined Node networks) would help, once they are united in
how everything should be tagged! Then they could also create a planner
which allows the user to simply click on consecutive sections (relations)
to be added to the itinerary, which could then result in a trip description
consisting of a list of guideposts to follow. In between the guideposts all
the routes use only the Yellow Diamond symbol (Gelbe Raute) I think.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20211117/22054a0e/attachment.htm>