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

Sat Nov 20 14:38:10 UTC 2021

Am 20.11.21 um 01:48 schrieb 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.
These symbols are only an addition to the destination signposting. Any
route orientated signposting that doesn't use the destination signposts
is deprecated (but in a little amount still existent) in North
Rhine-Westphalia, but I don't know the rules in the other states.
>
>
>> 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.
Of course.
>>
>> 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'
>
I didn't get it. Would you suggest to use the tag
"network:type=basic_network" for all the 24 (?) internodal segments or
only for those that are not part of any of the other routes or
relations? (about the half of them) The other segments can be part of
the numbered node network and/or part of a named route. But the named
routes also can be routes that are not according to the signposting
guidelines in their whole. So I don't know at the moment how to describe
in OSM that you can rely in these sections on the standardized signposting.

I just saw, that all my links were in openstreetmap which is useless for
my explanations as it's difficult to see the routes... I had to use
waymarkedtrails, so I add the whole list below anew... Sorry.

>>> 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.
>
I repeat myself: They don't overlap by chance. At last in North
Rhine-Westfalia new official routes have to "overlap" to 100%. And in
the 90's early concepts this was recommended. So you can expect that
this substantial overlap will increase and it has to be dealt with.
>
>> 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.

Hmm. I wouldn't talk about it that way. It is intended that the route
orientated system should use the destination orientated system. The
named routes are supposed to be made of the basic segments (which can
also be quite complicated routes) of the network. The fuzzy thing is
that you can't rely on it completely and there are still exceptions -
and will probably always be, espacially if I try to generalize the
concept as a tagging scheme.

I only try to find a way to create a representation of this system in
OSM which makes it possible to create maps of it.

The possibilities then would be huge: the user may decide whether he
wants to show only named routes, render different types of sections
differently (inclines, leisure routes, fast bicycle ways etc.). All this
information is given from the signposts so you have an ideal base for
OSM: verifyability! You won't have to discuss from which amount of
inclination you would tag it or how you get to the information, you just
use the information of the signposts. You will have the strong
disadvantage that this information is sparse and sometimes maybe
misleading or even wrong. But it is easily verifyable. That is the great
thing of it and I think worth the work. If you like to add other
information about the quality of the ways and so on, you are still free
to evaluate the additional information of the ways and you can chose
your own way of the interpretation of the tags or add other geodata.

Sebastian

_List of sections on the way from Bielefeld Hauptbahnhof to Spenge from
node (in the sense of branch, not of named/numbered node) to node:_

Start: "Spenge 17 km to south". 6 route inserts, /means usually that
this section is part of 6 relations of named routes/routes of the
numbered node network/: 08, Pudding, Fußball, Teuto-Senne, Weser-Lippe,
Hellweg-Weser [The other branches on the direction signs from this point
lead to Lage, Bad Salzuflen, Herford, BI-Schildesche]

Node 08: "Spenge 17 km to west", 3 route inserts: 15, Pudding,
Weser-Lippe [Branches: Gütersloh, Werther, Campus Bielefeld, Altstadt
(+backwards directions)]

https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#guidepost?id=7554134683
<https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#guidepost?id=7554134683>
Guidepost: Spenge 17 km NE, 3 route inserts: 15, Pudding, Weser-Lippe
[Branches: BI-Babenhausen, BI-Gellershagen]

https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#guidepost?id=8754195177
<https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#guidepost?id=8754195177>
Guidepost: Spenge 16 km N, 3 route inserts: 15, Pudding, Weser-Lippe
[SchücoArena, Siegfriedsplatz]

Node 15: Spenge 16 km N, 5 route inserts: Weser-Lippe, Pudding,
Romanzen, Aufspüren!, 11 [Obersee, Ravensberger Park]

https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#guidepost?id=7554134680
<https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#guidepost?id=7554134680>
Guidepost: Spenge 16 km N, % route insert (basic_network:
https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=12622099
<https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=12622099>)
[BI-Babenhausen, Nordpark]

https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#guidepost?id=8361368997
<https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#guidepost?id=8361368997>
Guidepost: Spenge 15 km NW, % route insert (basic_network:
https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=12800588
<https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=12800588>) [Obersee,
BI-Schildesche, Campus Bielefeld, Nordpark]

https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#guidepost?id=7573351545
<https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#guidepost?id=7573351545>
Guidepost: Spenge 14 km N, 1 route insert: 41 (part of relation with
network:type=node_network) [Campus Bielefeld, BI-Gellershagen]

https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#guidepost?id=8361368996
<https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#guidepost?id=8361368996>
Guidepost: Spenge 14 km N, % route insert (basic_network:
https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=12622100
<https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=12622100>) [Obersee,
BI-Schildesche]

https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#guidepost?id=7573351551
<https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#guidepost?id=7573351551>
Guidepost: Spenge 13 km N, % route insert (basic_network:
https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=12656818
<https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=12656818>)
[BI-Großdornberg, BI-Babenhausen, Obersee, BI-Schildesche]

Node 98: Spenge 13 km N, 3 route inserts: 03, Silhouetten, Weser-Lippe
[BI-Großdornberg, BI-Babenhausen, Obersee, BI-Schildesche]

Node 3: Spenge 11 km N, 4 route inserts: 04, Malerisch, Engel,
Weser-Lippe [BI-Großdornberg, BI-Babenhausen]

Node 4: Spenge 11 km N, 3 route inserts: 42, Engel, Weser-Lippe
[BI-Schildesche, Moorbachtal marked as "leisure route" BI-Schildesche
also backwards]

Node 42: Spenge 8.7 km N, 1 route insert: 51 [BI-Jöllenbeck]

https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#guidepost?id=8663160568
<https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#guidepost?id=8663160568>
Guidepost: Spenge 8.5 km W, % route insert (basic_network:
https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=12621890
<https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=12621890>)
[BI-Schildesche, BI-Vilsendorf]

https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#guidepost?id=8399999055
<https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#guidepost?id=8399999055>
Guidepost: Spenge 7.9 km N, % route insert (basic_network:
https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=12621890
<https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=12621890>) (branch at
this place without end of relation! nowadays I avoid that) [Enger,
Pödinghausen]

https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#guidepost?id=8399999054
<https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#guidepost?id=8399999054>
Guidepost: Spenge 7.6 km W, 4 route inserts 07,06, Engel, Weser-Lippe
[BI-Schröttinghausen, BI-Jöllenbeck Ortsmitte]

https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#guidepost?id=8663160567
<https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#guidepost?id=8663160567>
Guidepost: Spenge 7.3 km W, 1 route insert 07 [Enger, Pödinghausen]

Node 07: Spenge 6.5 km, 3 Route inserts: History 1, Herford 6, Wittekind
[Werther, Häger]

https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#guidepost?id=7700786088
<https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#guidepost?id=7700786088>
Guidepost: Spenge 6.3 km, % route insert (basic_network:
https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=12691435
<https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=12691435>) [Enger,
Westerenger]

https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#guidepost?id=8790620652
<https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#guidepost?id=8790620652>
Guidepost: Spenge 4.7 km, % route insert (basic_network:
https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=12797077
<https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=12797077>) [Enger,
Pödinghausen]

https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#guidepost?id=8790620655
<https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#guidepost?id=8790620655>
Guidepost: Spenge 3.4 km, % route insert (basic_network:
https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=12797078
<https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=12797078>) [Werther, Häger]

https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#guidepost?id=8790620657
<https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#guidepost?id=8790620657>
Guidepost: Spenge 3.1 km, % route insert (basic_network:
https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=12797079
<https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=12797079>) [Enger,
Westerenger]

https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#guidepost?id=8790620658
<https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#guidepost?id=8790620658>
Guidepost: Spenge 2.7 km, % route insert (basic_network:
https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=12797080
<https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=12797080>) [Werther,
Häger, Westerenger]

https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#guidepost?id=8790620659
<https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#guidepost?id=8790620659>
Guidepost: Spenge 1.8 km, % route insert (basic_network:
https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=12797081
<https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=12797081>) [Werther, Häger]

https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#guidepost?id=7009821694
<https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#guidepost?id=7009821694>
Guidepost: Spenge 1.3 km E, % route insert (basic_network:
https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=12852976
<https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=12852976>) [Werther, Häger]

Arriving in Spenge.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20211120/727d92a4/attachment-0001.htm>