I create this topic as suggested by Minh. Personally, I don’t feel comfortable with cycling_network because I already imagine myself dealing with hiking_network, mountainbike_network, running_network, riding_network, etc. I also imagine the confusions that new contributors will make with network, network:type, etc. If EuroVelo could avoid propagating this I’d feel better
This topic should apply to cycling routes in general, not just EuroVelo. If we come up with a replacement for cycle_network, I think that key would still have to remain for a time, just for backwards compatibility with any editors and data consumers that already support it (mostly editors at this point). But nothing is stopping us from pairing network=icncycle_network=EuroVelo with some newer tags like network:name=EuroVelonetwork:wikidata=Q262160. It would be quite redundant, but we’re tagging relations rather than individual ways, so some temporary redundancy would be manageable, especially with the help of id-tagging-schema or name-suggestion-index.
So far, I don’t think the U.S. has been tagging the networks that long-distance hiking routes belong to. I guess we’ve been relying on some fuzzy combination of trail managers in operator and blazes in osmc:symbol to convey the distinctions between one network or another. This is a great time to think about a more inclusive key; the U.S. community is working on a trail-oriented renderer that will probably end up rendering graphical shields for long-distance hiking and cycling routes in the same manner that OSM Americana has been for highway routes.