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

[Sebastian Gürtler]

Thank you so much. I think this is a quite complete summary of the
relevant points of the discussion and I agree.

Am 26.11.21 um 09:45 schrieb Peter Elderson:
> 1. The proposal that started this thread is being
> reconsidered/rewritten, as I understand from the author, JochenB.
>
> 2. I understand that the core proposal is about tagging that chains of
> ways have been selected by an authority as preferential for cycling to
> destinations. On the road this is implemented by destination oriented
> guideposting using standardized guideposts and standardized waymarking
> between the standardized guideposts.
>
> 3. The aspect that the OP wants to tag is this visible and verifiable
> official preference and the exact chain of ways between the
> guideposts. This is different than tagging ways as cycleways or ways
> fit for cycling. Correct?
Yes
>
> 4. There are two approaches: 1. tag the ways as officially preferred
> ways for cycling; 2. add the ways to route relations tagged as
> officially preferred cycling routes. Both approaches have pros and
> cons, both are already used in OSM, but both lack the "officially
> preferred" aspect.
... as I wrote - I think 1 is not a good idea. (You also would have to
introduce a new key or add tags with ';' to other tags).
>
> 5. icn, ncn, rcn and lcn are used for recreational routes. To me,
> using that to indicate the "officially preferred" aspect does not seem
> right.
>
Yes
> 6. network:type is aimed at a precisely defined network planning and
> navigating system, not a collection of officially preferred ways. It
> doesn't seem wise to reuse that for a preference indication for the
> same transport method over exactly the same ways.
>
The basic network is not just a preference indication. It is a precisely
defined network exactly like the node network. You have bicycle
recommendations additionally for example with verbal signs, the yellow
deviation recommendations and so on. But the main problem is that the
basic-routes are not distinct from the numbered node network, so you get
overlaps, where there it is difficult to define how to describe them.
> All in all, I would welcome a separate tag which does nothing more and
> nothing less than stating that the object (way, relation or node) is
> officially preferred for destination oriented traffic guidance.
>
Yes.

Maybe I would change the description to "stating that the object is
officially marked for destination oriented traffic guidance" to
emphasize that only "tagging what is on the ground" is meant.

And one should have in mind that in Germany this will result in a 100%
overlap with the numbered node network, so it would be easy just to put
the tag in the superrelations of the "node networks" and you have
accomplished the task for many routes. And this would be possible with
many of the recreational routes that follow the basic routes. Mapping
the basic routes could be limited to the routes that are not part of
other routes or to describe special situations, e.g. the additional
signposted section characteristics ("Routensymbole") which belong to the
destination guideposts. (examples/pictures
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Segubi/Elemente_NRW-Radwegenetz#Glossary_of_signposting>)


The main thing is that you could go with this tag more in detail for the
situation in Germany (for example to recommend it for a tagging scheme
on route relations) and use it on ways if it seems better for other
countries.

I personally would prefer a new tag more than using cycle_network= xyz
as 1) cycle_network is restricted to cycling and 2) this would need
adding tags by a ";" which reduces simplicity.

Any suggestions for the tag instead of this network:type=basic_network ?

Sebastian

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20211128/4c21794b/attachment.htm>