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

[Volker Schmidt]

One important thing (at least for me) that is emerging from this
discussion, is an underlying, not documented, assumption that I am making,
and that i shared most likely by all of my OSM cycling friends in Italy are
sharing, but that some people in this discussion are explicitly not sharing:
bicycle (and hiking ) routes in OSM are touristic routes. They are not
geared towards "the safest and fastest connection".

In a simplified way:
To get efficiently from A-town to B-town I need a router/navigator that
evaluates all possible routes from A to B using the relevant way and node
properties, plus DEM data from a third-party source, to find me a
near-optimal route. Nice landscapes or cultural heritage aspects do not
enter in the equation.
A cycle (hiking) tourist route is a mix, or a compromise between an
efficient route and a nice-landscape and culturally attractive route. It
maybe also taking into account the presence of suitable infrastructure like
food and lodging. Such a route is typically the product of an organisation
that promotes tourism.

When I (end user of the OSM data) want to go by bike to a shop in an
unfamiliar place on the other side of my city I want to do that via "the
safest and fastest connection".
When I plan to travel from Padova, Italy, to Paris, France, on bicycle, I
would like the router/navigator to make use of available cycle routes,
where suitable. I may accept the occasional crossing of a busy street to
get to a city centre, or a steep road to reach a medieval castle.

According to my experience so far, this approach works reasonably well,
because cycle routes are, by tacit convention in the OSM community,
cycle-touristic, and all I have to do in the settings of the
router/navigator is to deselect the "give preference to cycle routes"
option, in order to get "the safest and fastest connection".

One thing that is essential, if we were to consider a move towards a major
change (like using network:type=touristic/... to get at least some data
users (designers of routers, navigators) into this discussion.

A side remark: as far as I am aware, the fact that cycling/hiking routers
can give precedence to touristic routes in OSM, is something that car
navigation systems do not offer.

Volker

(my apologies that I react with delay in this thread - I had a close
encounter with a car, 5 ribs and a clavicle cracked, and have only one hand
free to type)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20211123/2ff3ed64/attachment.htm>