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

[JochenB]

Am 24.11.2021 um 05:10 schrieb Adam Franco:
> As I've been reading this long discussion the thought that keeps
> coming up in my mind is that "relation are not categories":
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations_are_not_categories
These giant relations are bad, but they are not categories. They would
be categories if one could also recognize without these relations that
the ways are part of the network. But this information is only mapped in
OSM when the ways are included in the relation.

> For this naive foreign mapper, it would seem that a given town-to-town
> "basic" route might itself be a relation (with member ways or nodes
> guiding between those two start/end points). It doesn't make sense to
> make a huge relation that includes all "officially recommended"
> "basic" routes between all communities.

Doing everything in one relation is not a good thing and is not part of
the proposal. But there are these huge relations. We have to break them
down into small, handy compounds.

The proposal is only about differentiating the purpose of the ways in
the network. Is it just a way that has been made part of the recommended
cycling / hiking network by means of official bicycle / hiking signs or
is it a tourist route? You cannot distinguish that with today's tags.
Thus, for example, you cannot hide the relations without tourist routes
in tourist maps.


> I may be misunderstanding what is being suggested, but instead of huge
> relations with thousands of members, how about defining a simple
> tag/tags that can be applied to highway ways that are officially
> recommended? `bicycle=designated` is an access rule, but maybe
> something like `bicycle_usage=recommended` or any other keys/values
> that get at the heart of what is being recommed.

That is exactly what the proposal aims to do. I want to be able to tag
that the way is part of an officially recommended cycling / hiking
network. I have suggested both a simple key for the path itself and a
key for relations. It doesn't matter to me whether it is represented by
a relation or by a tag on the way. Both are there, so I need a solution
for both.

However, it turned out that the proposed key is not self-explanatory.
Therefore there will be a revised proposal. Maybe
/'route:purpose=basic_network'/.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20211127/74910a62/attachment-0001.htm>