[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - value 'basic_network' - cycle_network?

[Florian Kratochwil]

Am 22.11.21 um 20:31 schrieb Mark Wagner via Tagging:
> I'm guessing that the "basic_network" being discussed here is that
> formed by the orange arrows.  If so, I don't think it should be mapped
> using route relations.  Since the routes don't have any sort of unique
> identifier, there's no way to say where one ends and another begins.
> Instead, it should be mapped as an attribute of the ways making up the
> network, similar to how things like "truck route" are mapped in the US.
>
Do you mean hgv:national_network=yes, when you say "truck routes"?
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:hgv:national_network

I did not know this one. I think it is a perfect match.

I think we already have an existing tagging equivalent to this truck 
routes for bicycles:   lcn=yes  Its status is "de facto" (it only has a 
german wiki page, it is mentioned it is disputed): 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:lcn%3Dyes

It is not as self-explaining as bicycle:local_network=yes would be.

I suggest to stop the current proposal seeking a tagging for relations 
and try to either propose
lcn=yes or
bicycle:local_network=yes or
bicycle:basic_network=yes (I am not sure either, like many on this list, 
if local_network and basic_network are the same or not.)

Florian