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

[JochenB]

Hallo Sebastian,

Am 19.11.2021 um 07:45 schrieb Sebastian Gürtler:
> The situation on the ground is quite different for hiking and the
> cycling network. The cycling network has official guidelines that are
> introduced for all states in Germany and the districts and communities
> are more or less bound to follow these rules. The hiking networks have
> much more freedom.

Yes, there is a greater variety of hiking networks in Germany.
Nevertheless, in most regions there are guidelines that a uniformity can
be identified within many regions. In Switzerland, for example, it seems
to be nationally standardized.

The approach of differentiating between a network with signposting and
route recommendations does not apply to all hiking trail networks. In
some regions, there is a destination signpost only on the route
recommendations, so that the routes completely cover the basic network.
Then you don't need that either.


> The cycle network has no discrimination between the tourist routes and
> "other routes". There is one network.
>
In the strict sense of the Basic Network, I agree with you. Its
signposting is usually aimed at all cyclists / pedestrians.

In a broader sense, however, the tourist route recommendations belong to
the network (network = basic network + route recommendations). The
tourist route recommendations usually have different target groups and
are signposted differently outside (symbols) than the basic network.


> For example: Destination orientated signposting: I start at Bielefeld
> Hauptbahnhof *... *Arrived.
>
> What helps in discrimination between the route orientated guidance and
> destination orientated guidance? Mainly the following of the
> destination signs, not the type of the relation. BUT: To follow them,
> the existence of the relations is essential. Guideposts are not
> sufficient if you look at the map where the routes go.
>
Well, some users prefer to orientate themselves at every intersection
using the place names on the signposts. Others prefer to follow a route
recommendation over a longer period of time. The combination suits both
of them.

For the user, it does not matter whether the coloring of the routes in
the map is based on relations or because the ways are tagged. But the
information has to get to the ways somehow. Tagging the signposts alone
does not really do the trick.


> Jochen, just to understand your proposal better: What exactly would be
> your suggestion for tagging the parts of this continuously signposted
> way from Bielefeld main station to Spenge.
>
According to the proposal, I would map all connections with destination
signage in relations. At least where there is no connection of the node
network above it.

The proposal regards the node network as a separate layer, because due
to the shared use of 'network:type', a connection can be either a node
network or a base network. Thought through to the end, this would mean
that both connections would tag it twice. But I would do without that.

The alternative would be to note on the relations of the node network
that they are also part of the basic network
('network:type=node_network;basis_network'.

Then another key for 'basic_network' would be better.

There is always criticism of 'network: type' because "type" is not
self-explanatory. But I can't think of anything self-speaking. Maybe
like this:

'route:purpose=basic_network/route_recommendation'?


>> In principle, 'noname=yes' only describes a symphtom and not the
>> heart of the matter. It's a bit like tagging 'sign_color=blue'
>> instead of 'highway=motorway'. I find that unsatisfactory. Why not
>> call the child by name?
>>
> I repeat myself: In the case of the cycling network there are no
> specific "basic" routes, there is no heart of the matter in it. The
> routes are all equivalent and it is just by chance and decision of the
> tourism departments which ways of the network they want to recommend
> as a touristic route and which not - or if they want to extend the
> network for whatever purpose.

Unfortunately I do not understand that. The routes of the basic network
are of course all the same, that's the core of the matter.

The tourist routes differ from the routes of the basic network in terms
of target group, the existence of firmly defined start and end points
(or circular route), the type of signposting and the ability to refer.
For "are all equivalent " there are quite a few differences.

If the connections of the basic network and route recommendations
overlap, both use the same infrastructure there, that is logical.


> Am 19.11.21 um 01:56 schrieb JochenB:
>> In almost every cycling concept of the German federal states it is
>> stated that they want to create a network of ways that are well suited
>> for cycling and that are provided with standardized signposting. The aim
>> is to promote cycling in general. That is the basic network.
>>
>> In addition, tourist routes are created and marketed with the aim of
>> getting tourists to travel along them, relax and spend money.
>>
>> Both are already recorded in many countries and are visible on the maps.
>>
>> The only problem is that both were recorded with the same tagging
>> scheme.
>
> ... this is no surprise, as they are signposted with the same scheme!
> The tourist routes are not an addition but are integrated in the other
> system.
>
Now you've lost me

The tourist routes are signposted in almost all German federal states by
small symbol signs. The cycling network through the destination
signpost. They are two very different things.

Yes, both complement each other wonderfully and both offers are part of
a well thought-out system. But the differences between the two types of
signage could hardly be greater.

Grüße,
Jochen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20211120/d209e5a3/attachment.htm>