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

[stevea]

Short version:  This is good; I am heartened by its optimism.

Medium version:  I think I need a good night's sleep right about now and have more to say, so there will be at least "a day's delay" as there was with your (quite well-written, thank you) turn-around / reply to me.  So, maybe Wednesday, maybe Thursday which is a major holiday (Thanksgiving) in my country — on both days (and this coming Sunday/Monday) are the biggest travel days of the year here and very busy shopping for food and sometimes presents.  Right now begins a sort of crazy time where the calendar slows way down, little work gets done and people travel and gather with family and friends.  Please bear with me, I may not really get to fully address these topics and your post / reply until this weekend.

Long-ish version:  I like that you say that "basic_network" is at the "lowest" layer / level of things, based on my hazy understanding of what you (and your country-folk) are doing is to "link bicycle-appropriate infrastructure together into a network which is suitable for bicycles, but not for any specific purpose, like commuters or tourists."  If say, icn=4, ncn=3, rcn=2, lcn=1 then basic_network would be 0 (zero) in this way of thinking about things (not actually using these numbers, just to illustrate how they relate to one another as layers / levels).  I think we might agree there.  However, I honestly believe that you can denote the "purpose" of a network by adding a modifier to the value of a cycle_network=* value.  Likewise for "THE" basic_network in a given jurisdiction.

Briefly, if you have, say, a regional network (might be a German state or Swiss canton...), I don't know the nomenclature, but say cycle_network=DE:Bavaria would be proper to denote on "state sign-posted bicycle routes," then I believe it is reasonable and would be immediately and widely understood that if you denoted the same state's "influence sphere" of its basic_network, this network (routes? ways which are denoted lcn=yes? or bcn=yes maybe? — I'm still not clear) sensibly could be tagged cycle_network=DE:Bavaria:basic (or something like that).  The tourist bicycle network in that state?  OK, cycle_network=DE:Bavaria:tourist and the "fast, I want to ride my bike as short and fast to work as possible" network (I don't know, I'm making that up, but maybe) as cycle_network:DE:Bavaria:commuter.  Likewise at national and local levels.  This is rough, but it is the idea I had since Day 1 of seeing your proposal, and I don't know why it wouldn't "just simply work."  I would hope you could address the shortcomings of this "reply proposal" while I try to avoid all the holiday hassle around here and get back to you in the next day or three.

I more-or-less "mostly" follow you, but I want to re- and re-re-re-read it so I'm sure and that means I will need a day or three.

Thank you!