[Tagging] cyclist profiles - was:Feature Proposal - RFC - value 'basic_network' - cycle_network?

[stevea]

On Nov 30, 2021, at 12:00 AM, Volker Schmidt <voschix at gmail.com> wrote:
> At the risk of repeating myself: can we acknowledge that having different tagging for commuting cycle routes as opposed to touristic cycle routes would be a big advantage for routing/navigation? And can we acknowledge that de facto in many European countries and in the US the existing cycle routes in OSM are mostly touristic? Hence can we agree on a different tagging scheme for commuting cycle routes?
> In addition it may be a good idea to keep in mind that a similar distinction would be useful also for motorised traffic.

I certainly agree this is a good idea.  Especially if the networks are obviously DIFFERENT (signed, published by a government or non-profit organization, provided to tourists in guides or brochures…as distinguished THIS is THIS kind of bicycle network, THAT is THAT kind of bicycle network), then it makes perfect sense for OSM to designated them as different.  We don’t seem to agree upon exactly how, but I think we do agree we should.