[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - value 'basic_network' for keys 'network:type', 'lcn' and 'lwn'

Dave F davefoxfac63 at btinternet.com
Tue Nov 30 16:57:43 UTC 2021


I think that, once again, a few contributors are confusing the physical 
way of a cycle path with a defined route which may be routed over 
numerous different ways (cycle path, bridleways, roads etc) which is 
defined in OSM with route relations.

Destination signboards, as shown in Jochen's examples are not cycle 
routes. They just indicate a city/town & can be traveled there by bicycle.

A route without a name/ref isn't a route.

Dave F

On 13/11/2021 22:25, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote:
> I am confused by this proposal, but it is probably just my lack of 
> understanding of the concept or something lost in translation.  It 
> seems that the proposal is focused on how to tag a route network that 
> does not have a name.  In that case, I would tag a route relation with 
> the tags:
>
> type=route
> noname=yes
>
> The noname tag has over half a million usages and is specifically for 
> this purpose of indicating that something has been surveyed and is not 
> named.
>

Dave F



More information about the Tagging mailing list