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

[Volker Schmidt]

Hmmm.
This tagging has issues, apart from the fact that it proves that my
assumption that bicycle routes in OSM are touristic, is not valid in
Belgium. :-(
The tag bicycle:type=utility is used here not in line with the (relatively
recent) wiki page Bicycle:type
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key%3Abicycle%3Atype>
I don't like the use of network=NCN (nation-wide cycling network) together
with cycle-network for the *name* of the network.
The key cycle_highway is a very recent new tag, and invites confusion with
cyclestreet <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cyclestreet> an
bicycle_road <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bicycle_road>
The ref F7 is repeated in the name.




<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
Virus-free.
www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

On Sun, 28 Nov 2021 at 23:35, Peter Elderson <pelderson at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20211129/69b01f22/attachment.htm>