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

[Brian M. Sperlongano]

I agree that lcn=yes is what I should have written -- but I see no reason
why a way tagged lcn=yes *must* be part of a route.  That seems like an
entirely artificial constraint and not some kind of fundamental tagging
canon.

On Sun, Nov 28, 2021 at 10:03 AM Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Am So., 28. Nov. 2021 um 01:52 Uhr schrieb Brian M. Sperlongano <
> zelonewolf at gmail.com>:
>
>> It seems that the challenge here is that you have all of these cycling
>> ways which are certainly part of an interconnected network, though they are
>> not part of any named and numbered route.
>>
>> I see this as very simple - we have a tag for this, network=lcn[1].
>> These ways are all part of a local cycling network, so tag them that way.
>>
>
>
> According to the wiki, the tag lcn=yes is intended for "Designates that a
> road or path is part of a local Cycling Network route", i.e. it must be
> part of a _route_.
>
> Still we could have a tag bcn with a slightly different definition ("is
> part of the basic cycling network" without the "route")
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cycle_routes
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20211128/0cffdc9e/attachment.htm>