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

Mon Nov 29 11:35:13 UTC 2021

Another maybe interesting user story from Belgium. Most cities have their
own version of a preferred cycling network. Here is Antwerpen, where the
whole thing is mapped as one relation of type route, with 1200+ members.
It's tagged network=rcn even though the whole thing is within the city
limits.
The same area has a cycling Node network with its own signposting system,
though often they use the same pole to carry the different shields. There
are many more junctions with guideposts than there are labeled Nodes, but
all the labeled Nodes are also regular junctions with destination based
direction indicators.

The ways have no special tags to indicate that they are Chosen.

Peter Elderson

Op ma 29 nov. 2021 om 11:17 schreef Peter Elderson <pelderson at gmail.com>:

> 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_-1075229084483051802_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/cadcefd1/attachment.htm>