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

[Seppe Santens]

I understand previously made concerns about objectivity and verifiability. Hence, I would not make this about the type or intended use of the infrastructure itself, not about the motives of cyclists or the cyclists' profile and not about the scenic properties along the way.

"If signs or something published denotes a route (or even network) as "commuter-oriented" or "tourist-oriented," we might properly denote that in OSM." → This is what it should be about in my opinion. It is also the distinction that is made in Belgium: some routes are operated by tourism agencies/departments and are designed/advertised/promoted for recreational use. Other routes are operated by mobility agencies/departments and are designed/advertised/promoted for functional use. Each has its own signs, so it's not a subjective thing, it's not the individual mapper who has to make a guess or decision. It's also not about any of the things I mentioned at the beginning, shown by the fact that these routes often overlap (Belgium is a small country with bad spatial planning, so there's not much space left to completely separate functional and recreational routes).

Using a "different tagging scheme" sounds a bit drastic (I agree with Peter that it should not be that difficult). In the tagging scheme for cycle highways (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:cycle_network%3DBE-VLG:cycle_highway) we used bicycle:type=utility to specifically tag commuting/functional routes, because it was already mentioned in the wiki. This doesn't break anything, it just adds extra information. Other suggestions are of course welcome.

Maybe one more thing to mention: we do try to keep contact with reusers/developpers. It's worth to mention https://www.fietsrouteplanner.org/, a route planner that was recently launched and that is specifically aimed at functional use / commuting. The cycle highways tagging scheme was intensively discussed with the makers of that route planner.

Cheers,

Seppe



-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: stevea <steveaOSM at softworkers.com>
Verzonden: dinsdag 30 november 2021 17:52
Aan: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools <tagging at openstreetmap.org>
Onderwerp: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - value 'basic_network' for keys 'network:type', 'lcn' and 'lwn'

If signs or something published denotes a route (or even network) as "commuter-oriented" or "tourist-oriented," we might properly denote that in OSM.  I'd consider this "low temperature" data, as has been said here, if it goes from A to B, I might not care whether it's commuter and I'm a tourist or vice versa.

To the best of my knowledge, we don't really have this distinction in the USA, though Minh does correctly point out that we have "bicycle boulevards" and those can "lean towards" being a bit more commuter-friendly, although even that is a stretch.
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging at openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
***DISCLAIMER*** www.westtoer.be/disclaimer