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

[Leon Karcher]

I've been following this discussion from the beginning and I really didn't expect it to get this much opposition. And I think this is because some still struggle to fully understand what this proposal is about exactly.
This proposal is basically just adding two new tags for two established keys (network:type and lcn) for two mapping schemes that both are practiced for years in Germany: Either we map the basic network as routes between the guideposts (and yes, the routes are repeatedly way marked between the guideposts, so the criteria for it to be mapped as a route is fulfilled) or we add lcn=yes directly to the ways, which I'm no fan of but it is easier for less experienced mappers. Well, or some mappers added these huge network relations with thousands of members, which I think we all agree to replace.
Since they are established for years I think we should not discuss about these mapping schemes rather than the core of the proposal - the two new proposed tags.

network:type=basic_network is in my eyes a perfect choice as the key network:type is already used for the node networks which use more or less the same mapping scheme with route connections between nodes, though node_network being a little more complex with the additional tags at the nodes itself. Just like in node networks the routes of the basic network begin and end at the guideposts, where at least three routes meet.
And there is definitely a need for that tag. I have seen quite often that basic network routes are mapped with a description tag saying something like 'bicycle route network - connection between two nodes'. https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/description=Radroutennetzwerk%2C%20Streckenrelation%20zwischen%20zwei%20Knotenpunkten
There are 3k+ routes with exactly this description which should be translated into a better machine readable tag like the one proposed here.

lcn/lwn=basic_network is not 100% necessary in my eyes as lcn/lwn=yes already implies that it is part of the basic network, how I understand it.

But nevertheless I'm totally in favor of network:type=basic_network!
-Leon/Karthoo

________________________________
From: Sarah Hoffmann <lonvia at denofr.de>
Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2021 3:33:54 PM
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools <tagging at openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [Tagging] cyclist profiles - was:Feature Proposal - RFC - value 'basic_network' - cycle_network?

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

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging at openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20211125/c1c688d4/attachment.htm>