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

[stevea]

Just one of many:  JochenB, your proposal is to change network to network:type.  That is a key change.  I'll even go so far as to say a poor one.  (I mean, others here have said as much, it isn't only me).

If you want to move your own goalposts, I'm OK with that, we do attempt to move this forward.

I appreciate your "we're similar, we've 'done this' for the last decade."  That makes us kindred spirits in OSM.  If, by 'done this' you mean build-and-share bicycle networking at country/wide level, OK, yeah.

Where (like wiki, for example), might I read up on how your bicycle (and hiking) routes are "structured" ...um, "there," wherever "there" is (we could start in Germany)?  If this documentation is only in German, OK, I'll use machine translation first, it's OK these days.

The word "opaque" comes to mind about your "I'll answer you tomorrow" so I don't have any choice but to wait.  I don't wish to be mean as I say that.  I'd love to start at the root of "who is in charge of what these signs mean?" and get like 10 phone numbers or people who can send me their portable document diagram of how simple it all is or talk to me for a few minutes about how it works.  I'm lost amidst signage.  (And maybe describing you and your country-folk as crazy — even as one himself did! — is the simplest exit lane / checkered flag).  Where do I find out what signs I'm looking at actually mean?  Some brochures from the Ministry of Bicycling?  I think we all want to "model that" in OSM (and likely partially do, you are much more up on that than I am) but we're not talking about it, we're naming it without describing itself nor the world it lives in.  That whole rich bicycle-route-and-networky world belongs in OSM, and I mean a really nicely elegant method of doing it.  Being understandable is paramount!

I am not proud of what a messy spectacle this must seem.  There does seem light at the end of the tunnel.  Tomorrow.