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

[stevea]

On Nov 21, 2021, at 12:12 PM, JochenB <JochenB at wolke7.net> wrote:
> ...The second problem is that in route relations it has not yet been possible to differentiate between route recommendations and the rest of the hiking / cycling network. Hence the proposal to indicate to the ways or relations of the hiking/cycling network that they belong to the hiking/cycling network.

Mmmm, I politely disagree.  It might seem a bit unorthodox, as it would be differentiating between route RECOMMENDATIONS as opposed to route NETWORKS, but I'm certain you can do this with cycle_network tagging.  Provided a widely-agreed-upon set of values that accommodated all of:

• country (-level); this is already established and documented in the tag's wiki using two-letter country codes,

• "regional" (might be a German state, might be a Swiss canton...) is another level, this obviously is subordinate to country-level and would have to be "cleverly accommodated" by good discussion that eventually turned into "wide agreement as to what the cycle_network tag values will be at various levels of political entity (a simple table of values that are agreed upon via "Western European consensus-building"),

• "kind" (I refrain from using the often-ambiguous word "type") of network, like commuter, basic, tourist-oriented, et cetera — the simple fact that this part of the world has a rich set of these seems a "fundamental misunderstanding" that needlessly confuses the proposal into existence,

• perhaps another "dimension" in the cycle_network values that expressed additional "members of a hierarchy" (or members of a country or region that differ from one another).  I am not quite sure what this is, but we are experiencing "growth" in the concept of different sorts (basic, commuter, tourist) kinds of routes, so maybe this is the same as "kind," maybe it is yet another direction concepts of bicycle routing and networking might go.

Please, get your infrastructure tagging correct, first; that is critical.  While doing this, discuss the hell out of deciding upon these crucial cycle_network values, because THAT IS ALL YOU NEED TO DO THIS.  Correctly.  Completely.  It will take some good "design" work, certainly some wide consensus among many interested parties, but once these two things are done  — and you must leave "room for future growth" meaning you have to be somewhat visionary here — you simply tag accordingly.  The routers / renderers / end-use cases are already there and doing what they are doing to accommodate this, and they will "do their thing" what is essentially "properly."  (Because they already do, withOUT there being invented a new scheme like "basic_network").

> My proposal does not contain anything else at first.

It seems to contain quite a bit more, but OK, if you say so.

Truly, I'm trying to "do OSM a solid" here.  I have no hidden agenda, simply clarity and wide understanding.