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

[Sebastian Gürtler]

Am 28.11.21 um 21:28 schrieb Peter Elderson:
> I am not a fan of the word basic in key or value. It suggests that
> other routes are built on top of these routes, which in general is not
> the case.
I don't know the situation in whole Germany but in the regions I know I
would say in general it is really the case but there are some exceptions
(as far as I know outdated routes, I haven't seen newly designed routes
that don't follow the new scheme).
> Germany may have a business rule for cycling that all cycling routes
> use these basic routes, but in fact they don't. In my experience with
> this kind of rule, it never works out completely, and business rules
> change. If any country can do it, it's Germany, but even then it's a
> localised exception, it works only for cycling in the parts of Germany
> that implemented the integrated guideposts completely and removed
> other types of guideposts.

That's an important fact that the reality has different networks or at
least one quite well defined network and more or less independent
cycling routes in parallel.

So a complete generalized tagging wouldn't be able to reflect the actual
situation. Finally I think the most suitable solution for my intention
to map the emerging network may really be describing just that there is
a cycle network with special features, find a name which has a broad
consensus and put it as value for cycle_network=DE:xyz. As stated by
Steve, this could be combined with other network identifiers if
necessary in special cases. This could be discussed in the German forum,
and it wouldn't interfere with tagging in other regions.

Sebastian