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

[stevea]

The use of network:type=node_network is sort of like "a new branch of mathematics / geography-geometry" expressed by a tag (key) "branch" (the syntax with the : after network).  OK, the difference between a node network and a segment network IS like a new form of math.

But this idea of a PURPOSE of a network, not the "nuts and bolts that make it up as data structures in a database," (one branch of math / geography-geometry vs. another), THAT doesn't seem like a proper use of extending the syntax with a : and "type."  I keep trying to say WHY I'm certain that's wrong, but the "what is it that is being pinned down / specified" is like a greasy pig I can't quite wrestle to the ground.  Others are better at that part, I seem to be fumbling with what might be good syntax that fits into what / how what we already do being proposed so it all makes sense.  I'm not there.  Yet.

It's the wrong place in the syntax.  It is still unclear in my mind whether "basic_network" IS a "network" (a collection of routes that "are in a certain sense associated together").  I'm not stupid, yet I struggle.

I listen.  I keep an open mind and consider.  I'm also having a holiday and everything is "slowed down" right now (I surprise myself I'm even checking / answering traffic on this list).

We've got an "extra chewy one" here, everybody.  I think that is obvious.