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

[Peter Elderson]

So, network=lcn does not tell the purpose of the route. If you want to tell
routes apart by purpose (as demonstrated by the signposting system), lcn
does not qualify.

You could use lcn=* to further specify the purpose. Because there are
regional routes and national routes, you would also need rcn=* and ncn=* .
And of course, the other transport methods as well...

Luckily, because network=* is already there, determining the geographic
extent and the transport method, you can add a generic tag to state the
functional purpose of the route. Even more luckily, several flavours of
such a tag have already been suggested.

Peter Elderson


Op zo 28 nov. 2021 om 18:59 schreef Peter Neale via Tagging <
tagging at openstreetmap.org>:

> Correction:  The relations forming the "Super Routes" are tagged
> "network=lcn" and NOT "lcn=yes".
>
> Apologies for any confusion.
>
> Regards,
> Peter
>
> (aka PeterPan99)
>
>
> ----- Forwarded message -----
> *From:* Peter Neale <nealepb at yahoo.co.uk>
> *To:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools <
> tagging at openstreetmap.org>
> *Sent:* Sunday, 28 November 2021, 16:38:03 GMT
> *Subject:* Re: [Tagging] cyclist profiles - was:Feature Proposal - RFC -
> value 'basic_network' - cycle_network?
>
> I agree with @Brian (aka zelonewolf),
>
> You cannot tell for what purpose a user will travel on a route.
>
> Where I live, the local Council has designated a number of cycle (and
> walking) routes as "Super routes".  These generally run roughly parallel to
> main roads and run roughly North - South (Super Routes V2, V4, V6 etc) , or
> roughly East - West (Super Routes H2, H4, H6 etc).  These form a "network"
> ( a roughly rectangular grid) of routes and IMHO are more suitable for
> commuting to work, shopping,or generally "getting somewhere" than for
> tourism.  There is one relation per route, which is tagged as "lcn=yes"
>
> Other (non-Super) cycleways are simply tagged as "highway=cycleway" and I
> see no need to tag them, or collect them into a huge relation, as some sort
> of "basic network".
>
> There again, perhaps I still don't understand what the "basic network" is
> supposed to be....
>
> Regards,
> Peter
>
> (aka PeterPan99)
>
>
> On Sunday, 28 November 2021, 15:56:48 GMT, Brian M. Sperlongano <
> zelonewolf at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 3:53 AM Peter Elderson <pelderson at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> 5. icn, ncn, rcn and lcn are used for recreational routes.
>
>
> Says who?  lcn is a "local cycling network", it says absolutely nothing
> about the purpose for which people might use the cycleway.  There is
> nothing in the English or German wiki pages that I can find that backs up
> this assertion.  I maintain that lcn etc are perfectly fine tagging for
> either recreational or commuter usage, and I find the distinction you're
> making to be strange.
>
> We don't tag roads this way, so I don't see why we'd tag cycleways this
> way.
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20211128/7fb82311/attachment-0001.htm>