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

[Peter Elderson]

Our Belgian friends are mapping "Cycle highways" ("Fiets-snelwegen") which
are being rolled out over the country (of course, they call it a network of
cycle_highways). Signposting will still take some time to complete; they
use lifecycle tags to make sure only waymarked sections show up and are
routed. The routes are chains of ways in route relations, tagged as follows:

bicycle:type utility
cycle_highway yes
cycle_network BE-VLG:cycle_highway
name F7 Fietssnelweg Gent - De Pinte
network ncn
operator Provincie Oost-Vlaanderen;Provincie West-Vlaanderen
ref F7
route bicycle
type route

The function/purpose is packed in the tag: cycle_highway=yes
It's used for emphasized rendering and adapted weight for routing.
They show up on waymarkedtrails, as national routes.

They have no plans to tag all officially destination-signposted ways as
such, nor to create relations for that purpose.

Just a frontline story.

Single comment: the cycle_network=* tag is not adding much here!

Peter Elderson


Op zo 28 nov. 2021 om 22:29 schreef Sebastian Gürtler <
sebastian.guertler at gmx.de>:

>
> 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 (as far as I know outdated routes, I haven't seen newly designed routes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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/cd197afe/attachment.htm>