[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - value 'basic_network' for keys 'network:type', 'lcn' and 'lwn'
Peter Elderson
pelderson at gmail.com
Sun Nov 21 21:31:16 UTC 2021
Whatever the outcome, *please don't remove or alter the existing
network:type=node_network* tags.
While this tag may not seem very informative*, the Node Network mapping
system of routes and junctions it denotes is clearly defined for all kinds
of recreational route networks using labeled Nodes (Junctions where the
traveler chooses the next labeled Node to go to) to plan itineraries along
prescribed connection routes, and to guide the user on their trip.
* I agree with comments that :type doesn't say what kind of type. I also
think that node_network is not particularly clear in a system where all
objects are built out of nodes. Still, it does the job.
If, in a particular region or country, all Node Network connections exactly
coincide with other routes there is no harm in reusing the
Node2Node routes, maybe adding an extra tag to indicate the extra function.
However, nowhere where I have cycled or hiked can you count on this exact
coincidence, for all the geographical scopes and transport types that the
Node Network system handles. So it would not be wise to build on that; at
most, it's an option.
The question still is, what do you want to achieve with this tagging? More
and more I get the feeling that the goal is to render a complete cycling
map of the officially signposted routes and the recreational routes, to go
with the official integrated signposting system.
If that is the case, it actually doesn't matter to which "official network"
the nodes/ways/relations belong. You in fact only want the
guideposts/roads/routes to be highlighted. An elaborate cycle_network=<some
string with abbrevs and interpunction> would be overkill.
I would go for cycle_network=official or something like that. Or, simply
use the osmc:symbol tag to specify a red or green bicycle.
The last thing I would like to point out: this really isn't specific German
stuff. Many countries have destination based signposting, route based
signposting, guideposts combining things, and "officiums" issuing
guidelines and prescriptions how everything should be done in the same way
throughout the city/forest/area/region/province/country. I hope OSM-can map
and tag things generically, no matter what business rules are currently
trendy in a particular spot on the globe.
Fr Gr Peter Elderson
Op zo 21 nov. 2021 om 19:44 schreef stevea <steveaOSM at softworkers.com>:
> On Nov 21, 2021, at 10:27 AM, Sebastian Gürtler <sebastian.guertler at gmx.de>
> wrote:
> >
> >> We do have [...]
> >> We do not have a scheme for signposted non-touristic bicycle routes,
> including bicycle superhighways or similar dedicated structures
> >>
> > ... I think that's the aspect that is my personal focus (still
> emphasizing that in Germany there is just one signposting system
> integrating both touristic and non-touristic routes) - and have still
> neither a real good idea how to transfer this into OSM nor I know how
> exactly Jochen would suggest to use the tag basic_network in cases like I
> sent lately. (In my personal surrounding I just used it and render my own
> maps based on it, but I see inconsistencies besides advantages).
>
> Clearly, touristic routes belong to a different cycle_network (or even
> plural networks), distinct from "the basic network," which must be given a
> unique value of cycle_network to identify it / them.
>
> You have (bicycle) infrastructure, OK, easy to tag. Build or improve
> these so there is absolutely no ambiguity about them and everybody agrees
> they are correct. Due to what appears to be messy tagging (no judgement,
> just stating the facts without pointing fingers of blame), you are not
> there yet and you must "go back to here to go forward."
>
> You have (bicycle) signage which imply a number of different kinds of
> routes. Some of these routes are part of at least one "basic_network"
> where the basic routes "make up together" this thing, perhaps one of many
> (perhaps at various levels, like local and regional). Whether these are
> way-member networks (traditional) or node-member networks (node-oriented),
> OSM models both kinds of routes with relations. Build these AFTER you get
> to the above place of "infrastructure consensus" with proper
> cycle_network=* tagging where the values of that tag are widely agreed upon
> to correctly reflect the geography (Germany-national,
> Germany-a-particular-German-state, Switzerland-national,
> Switzerland-a-particular-Swiss-canton...) and type (tourist, basic,
> commuter...) of cycle_network tag values.
>
> This is how the rest of the world does this, and you can, too. But I
> don't think basic_network as the proposal that is being proposed is going
> to do it.
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20211121/9fe24f55/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the Tagging
mailing list