[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - value 'basic_network' for keys 'network:type', 'lcn' and 'lwn'

[Florimond Berthoux]

Hi,

Sorry I didn’t read the whole discussion, so just to give my point of view:
I see no issue of tagging these as bicycle routes.
« A *route* is a customary or regular line of passage or travel, often
predetermined and publicized. Routes consist of paths taken repeatedly by
people and vehicles: a ship on the North Atlantic route, a car on a
numbered road, a bus on its route or a cyclist on a national route. »
The definition fits the need I think.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route

In Netherland they use for there node bicycle network the bicycle route
tagging scheme, and have many short routes between nodes like this
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1546314#map=14/52.1472/4.8917&layers=Y
Your examples are like a node network without node ref :)

Best regards.

Le mar. 16 nov. 2021 à 11:13, Richard Fairhurst <richard at systemed.net> a
écrit :

> I can definitely see the value in a tag along these lines. I've
> encountered several situations where a city has a signed network of
> connections for cyclists, clearly directing people along particular
> roads/trails - but they're not point-to-point routes as such, and don't
> have names or refs. We don't have a good way of tagging these yet.
>
> Three examples I've encountered:
>
> Cambridge, England. There is a carefully planned network of connections,
> signed like this (apologies for G**gle):
> https://goo.gl/maps/6RQKGvNnVsFucBSD6,
> https://goo.gl/maps/KPx5VHimVCVo99fP7,
> https://goo.gl/maps/yLaUeRjbNUUf3av37 (connection to King's Hedges signed
> off NCN 51).
>
> These are currently mapped as
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12218549 which is just wrong: it's
> not a "route" and it isn't officially called "Cambridge signed cycle routes
> network". But we don't have another solution.
>
> Cardiff, Wales. The signed routes were tagged as lcn=yes which worked fine
> for the local mappers until OpenCycleMap (for understandable reasons)
> stopped rendering that. The local mappers don't know what tags they should
> be using instead, and I couldn't give them a good answer.
>
> Flagstaff, Arizona. There is a network of routes, some of which are named
> but others are just connections, called FUTS (Flagstaff Urban Trail
> System): see
> https://www.flagstaff.az.gov/1379/Flagstaff-Urban-Trails-System-FUTS.
> It's in OSM as https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2815833. It was
> previously mapped as route=bicycle, type=route; I changed it to
> type=network in 2019 because it wasn't a route. I am slightly surprised no
> one has shouted at me for that yet. ;)
>
>
> So we have something factual here that could be mapped, but currently no
> agreed way to map it. JochenB's proposal is a good start and identifies the
> issue.
>
> The main problem with it is that network:type=basic_network is really not
> a great name. It's not intuitive from the tag what it is; it could honestly
> mean anything. The second problem is that it's based on type=route, but
> that means 'point-to-point route', and these aren't - they're networks.
>
> So why not just do this:
>
> type=network
> route=bicycle
> network=lcn
>
> Exactly the same as a point-to-point bike route, but with type=network
> rather than type=route. It does what it says on the tin ("type=network", of
> which there are 3.3k already), it's simple, and it accords with existing
> tagging.
>
> Richard
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Florimond Berthoux
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20211127/432c8b64/attachment-0001.htm>