[EuroVelo] What to do with cycle_network

[StC]

Follow up on [EuroVelo] EV17 :

@Minh_Nguyen

@Peter_Elderson

There are already too many transport-specific keys as it is, while basically the routes are not that different. From an informational standpoint, that is. They are all strings of ways, grouped together in all kinds of ways.

How about something like operator_network=EuroVelo? That would work across all routes and transport modes, doesn’t repeat information already present (route=bicycle, network=*cn, hence no need to stress again that it’s about cycling).

This would be worth a separate thread too. (We’re on a roll!) cycle_network was clearly a short-sighted key name, essentially borne out of exasperation at the extremely limited network=lcn/rcn/ncn/icn scheme. The U.S. was just starting to develop its national cycle route system and we knew we’d need much more flexibility, because the authorities were planning to mimic highway route designations. At the time, no one wanted to extend the three-letter scheme, because doing so would break OpenCycleMap and Waymarked Trails, so here we are.

This wiki discussion floated some other possibilities, such as network:name in combination with the already common network:wikidata. It’s important to distinguish networks from operators, because many entities manage multiple networks and some networks have no centralized operating entity.

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

[Minh_Nguyen (Minh Nguyễn)]

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=icn cycle_network=EuroVelo with some newer tags like network:name=EuroVelo network: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.