[Tagging] cyclist profiles - was:Feature Proposal - RFC - value 'basic_network' - cycle_network?

[Sarah Hoffmann]

On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 10:46:23AM +0100, Peter Elderson wrote:
> Journey-Oriented Recreational Traffic guidance is the regular mapping of
> (mostly) recreational routes in OSM, provided it's
> visible/verifiable (signposted, waymarked).
> 
> Destination-Oriented Everyday Traffic guidance for most forms of transport
> is not usually mapped in OSM. Fact is that it's
> present/visible/verifiable in most countries. So yes, it can be mapped.
> 
> It really does not matter whether the physical signs are on integrated
> guideposts or separate posts or a mix. It's about what they provide for the
> traveller: where to go, where to ride, what way to use, how to get to the
> next clue.

Very well said.

I get the feeling that we are turning circles here because the word
'route' is being use ambiguously here:

The guidepost do not lay out a route, they just give you directions.
They tell you what potential destinations can be reached in a certain
direction. They do just help you with doing your own  'routing'. That
is a very different from the concept of the touristic routes we map
with type=route: their concept is to follow a certain trail of
breadcrumbs (aka waymarked symbols) along the way. They really do
the 'routing' for you.

Or to put it in different words: for a route, the journey is the
reason for existence. The basic network is there to help you reach
a destination.

I don't think this discussion will go anywhere until we stop trying to
mix these two very different concepts in the same mapping style.

> It's up to the mapper how to define begin and end of such routes. Mapping
> all destinations to all other destinations is not very practical. In this
> case, mapping Guidepost2Guidepost seems feasible, and could cover the whole
> system of destination oriented traffic guidance wherever it occurs and
> whatever form it takes. It's a hell of a job, but if people want to do it,
> be my guest!

The arbitrariness you describe here is what bothers me. It is a
sign that the tagging schema is not well suited for the real world
concept.

> So, why not limit the discussion (and the proposal from which it sprouted)
> to which tag would be appropriate to distinguish destination oriented
> routes from recreational routes?
> 
> For me, two things are important:
> 
> * The tag should not interfere with existing tags (should not require
> retagging existing route relations)
> * The tag should be generic, i.e. applicable to all modes of transport, in
> all countries, and all geographic scopes. It indicates a purpose. The other
> aspects are already present in other tags.

For me, the proposal breaks a very important rule of tagging in OSM:
do not change the meaning of the main tag by adding a subtag.
As the proposal stands, adding network:type=basic_network makes
a network out of what was meant to be a route. It is essentially
a 'I am not a route' subtag to type=route.

JochenB, if you cannot be convinced to consider dropping relations altogether
and concentrating on the lcn=yes tagging style instead, then I'm
firmly with RichardF: find a different relation type to put the networks
into.

Sarah