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

[Peter Elderson]

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. :-(
>

You are right. The statement is mostly tru, but there are developments. No
problem, I think, I just should adapt the wording of such statements.


> 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 didn't know the tag at all, nor the wiki. I think it is up to the cyclist
to decide which type of bicycle to ride. I think they map operator intent
here, not actual usage.


> I don't like the use of network=NCN (nation-wide cycling network) together
> with cycle-network for the *name* of the network.
>

I think they map the geographic extent of the route collection
(nation-wide) as network=ncn, not the actual extent of the routes which
seems local or regional.to me. So the tag says: belongs to a national
plan/collection/network. The operator looks regional to me.


> 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.
>

I would probably tag differently, much less detail, just the functional
part, but I think these routes are definitely worth mapping, aimed at
rendering and routing separate from the recreational routes. In this case I
think another network:type=* value would be right.


>
> <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>
> <#m_-1770876674428141595_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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/bd89efb6/attachment-0001.htm>