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

[Volker Schmidt]

This discussion is going a bit in circles, and lacking one important aspect.
The important aspect is that many people on bicycles use navigation devices
for travel that is not in areas they know well by memory. Anything we do
needs to keep that in mind.

The discussion we are having regards bicycle use, but many aspects are
equally valid for car or pedestrian travel. So we should also keep these
two types of transport in mind.

*We do have* an established way to tag sign-posted tourist routes for cycle
tourism, MTB , hiking, and for cars (the latter is less frequent, but think
of the Romantische Strasse, the various Route du Vin, or the Historic Route
66).
The routes can be way-routes or node routes.
We try to assign them more or less arbitrarily to local, regional,
national, transnational networks. Not arbitrary is the assignment of cycle
tourism routes to networks in the UK, whereas in Italy the assignment
exists mostly only in OSM.

We so far have a consensus to not map as cycle/hiking/...  routes any route
that is not signposted on the ground (there is some gray area, e.g. some
the unsigned ACA proprietary routes appear on OSM)

*We do not have* a scheme for signposted non-touristic bicycle routes,
including bicycle superhighways or similar dedicated structures

*We do have* ways of tagging road infrastructure (ways, and nodes like
obstacles and crossings) in such a way that a navigation/routing algorithm
can find suitable routes, based on a set of technical criterions (road
classification, surface, smoothness. track type, speed limits, ...). *But
we do not have* a tagging for generic "this is road suitable for bicycles"
signs, as they exist e.g. in Germany, and in the USA.
My understanding of the discussion is that the concept of the proposed
"basic network", is a subset of roads that fulfill the criterion of being
bicycle-friendly and are inter-connected.

*We do not have* ways of explicitly tagging the "beauty" of a road
(something like the green line on the once famous Michelin 1:200000 maps)

>From experience with different routing/navigation products I know how to
get them to find efficient routes (technically suitable, but not
necessarily touristic) and interesting (preference to touristic) cycle
routes.
(BRouter-web is my favourite routing site)

*We do not have* an approved way of mapping  well-published touristic
routes that have no signposting on the ground (I am thinking of the man
brochure-based or app-based cycling routes by official tourist offices)

*We do not have* an approved way of mapping cycle routes that are carrying
you from A-town to B-town with consistently installed signposts "A-town>"
and "B-town>", which we have also here in Italy (even though maintenance of
such signposting is often uncertain)

I am sure my list is not complete.
I am sure that there are more aspects to be considered, and we need to
extend our mapping schemes, but I am still not convinced of the
"basic-network" tagging approach proposed here.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20211121/ea4c7868/attachment.htm>