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

[Flips]

I am pretty much in favor of the key network=bcn as Martin wrote. And equaly network=bwn for hiking.

Cheers, Urs



Am 28. November 2021 16:34:56 MEZ schrieb "Brian M. Sperlongano" <zelonewolf at gmail.com>:
>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/20211128/6feae5bb/attachment.htm>