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

[stevea]

On Nov 27, 2021, at 3:25 PM, JochenB <JochenB at wolke7.net> wrote:
> 
> Am 26.11.2021 um 02:44 schrieb stevea:
>> So, do so ..., but please don't do so with network:type ... .  Because it really, really is confusing to say this is a "type of network."  
> On the one hand, I would like to counter: correct, but too late. 100% of our node networks have this key with the unhelpful name. Even with 'network=lcn/rcn/ncn/icn' and 'cycle_network=<country>:<state>:<destrict>:<...>' it is too late, here too it should actually be added which type of Classification takes place in the key

I'm certain that "poor legacy tagging" has badly stung OSM before so that "too bad, we're stuck with it."

This is the first I have heard exactly this expressed about the problem being solved.  Or maybe understood that.

> On the other hand, with my proposal we are strengthening the key with a name that is not very meaningful, since we are adding more values instead of using or introducing a better one. Stevea is right about that.
> 
> But there is another argument that speaks against 'network: type'. In another branch of this extensive discussion, we have come to a sore point:
> 
> Where there is a node network (signposting using node numbers) there is usually also a basic network (signposting destination-oriented), at least in Germany. Both are 100% identical in the routing. One would also divide the relations of both networks equally / similarly. If you want to map both completely, you have 2 identical relations, which differ only in the proposed key. It's unwieldy.

We have similar situations elsewhere, for example a route=road and a route=bicycle which have exactly the same members, but because differences between these objects (they DO denote TWO DIFFERENT OBJECTS), OSM requires that there BE two relations (with slightly or not-so-slightly differing tags on the relation itself).  So, there ARE two relations.  It isn't unwieldy, as each represents what it represents.  Sometimes there is a note=* tag or a wiki notation saying something like "keep this (road) relation sync'd / updated with (bicycle) relation/123456789" but that doesn't cost much (in data storage) and is both helpful and effective.  I disagree with the notion that it is "unwieldy" for two separate relations to denote two separate (but slightly or not-so-slightly related) objects in OSM.  That is exactly, mathematically, logically correct and OSM does it frequently.  If that seems to you like "a management problem," I suggest you develop way(s) to solve that, it isn't difficult, even as it might slightly differ among localities and/or regions.

> ...But that would mean that target-oriented signposting is a basic requirement for a designated hiking / cycling network. The example from California shows, however, that sometimes only small bicycle symbols indicate these ways.

No, it is not a "basic requirement" for a designated hiking / cycling network that it be target-oriented; there are many, many such examples that demonstrate that "non-requirement."  And, am I hearing that "the example from California" (I'm not sure which, do you mean our green sign with a bicycle glyph and the words "Bike Route"? — as that is nationwide across USA, not just California) which isn't a "small sign" nor does it contain "small symbols" (it is a "full-sized" sign) somehow contradicts anything?  It doesn't.  This sign does not have any destinations about it, it simply means "the road upon which this sign is found is more suitable for bicycles than another route you might choose" (which is parallel or nearby, for example). Again, we don't call this "basic network" here, we call these Class III bike routes.  This means they are not dedicated-for-bicycle-way, like highway=cycleway (Class I), they are not painted bike-lane from the kerb out to two meters (or so) into the roadway which IS dedicated for only bicycles (cycleway=lane), it means "Share the Road" (with cars and bicycles) or "Bikes May Use Full Lane."  We have signs that read exactly THOSE things, too, in the USA, and they are roughly equivalent.  We (here in the USA) COULD call these "a basic network," but we don't.  You can, I won't stop you, but please denote these using key-value pairs which the rest of the world can understand, because they fit into the already-denoted bicycle infrastructure, routing and networking syntax we already have been using for the last decade around the world.  I continue to fail to see the need to invent new syntax.  I continue to see the fail to invent new values for an existing key, nor why this isn't a perfectly workable (though potentially complex and even somewhat time-consuming and difficult to design among the wide number of parties who must contribute) solution.