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

[Paul Johnson]

Seems like a good idea would be to adopt network=* in the style currently
used for roads.  Off the top of my head, Washington County, Metro and
Portland bike routes all share lcn in a contiguous space despite being
different networks, when they could be US:OR:Metro, US:OR:Portland, etc...

On Mon, Nov 29, 2021, 12:25 stevea <steveaOSM at softworkers.com> wrote:

> On Nov 29, 2021, at 3:35 AM, Peter Elderson <pelderson at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Peter, thank you for this example!
>
> As you say "It's tagged network=rcn even though the whole thing is within
> the city limits," I think one thing that we CAN agree upon is that the
> "rcn" value (of network) is perhaps the most flexible among the current
> values.  In the USA, we know this, too, and while rcn is usually "one USA
> state," it could also be smaller or larger.  In the case of the Antwerpen
> example, at over a half-million people, it is a (medium-to-large sized)
> city.  So, we shouldn't let this seem terribly unusual, especially with rcn.
>
> Yes, for icn, I think most (everybody?) agrees those routes tagged with
> that network value should "cross into at least two or more countries" —
> little to no disagreement there.  For ncn, those should be "national" (or
> "national scope"), leaving this a bit fuzzy, but not too much so.  And lcn
> could be a city, a county, a university campus, a lot of different things,
> similar to the flexibility already built-in to rcn, but "more local."
> Especially in the context of "other rcn routes" and "other ncn routes" in
> the "parent" region and nation for that locality.  That's why these routes
> and networks leave so much discretion to the "carving up of the namespace"
> within cycle_network=*, because they really are so very different in any
> country (and its regions and localities).
>
> The lack of specificity with these is a major reason that cycle_network=*
> was invented, to specify exactly WHICH network a cycle route belongs to.
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20211130/fc7ddf24/attachment-0001.htm>