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

Mon Nov 29 11:35:57 UTC 2021

Sorry, forgot the link:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9857490#map=13/51.2165/4.4127&layers=C

Peter Elderson

Op ma 29 nov. 2021 om 12:35 schreef Peter Elderson <pelderson at gmail.com>:

> 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_-4313733393730885953_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/20211129/4322d51c/attachment-0001.htm>