Sorry to reply in English!
For answers, I look at two things:
- rendering (in waymarkedtrails, osmand, the OSM cycle layer and the upcoming Knooppuntnet planner)
- nodenetwork routing from node to node using only the node network. (Not regular A to B routing).
The test-version of the Knooppuntnet node network planner is available here: https://experimental.knooppuntnet.nl/de/map/cycling
cycle_network tag is, as far as I know, not used for 1. and 2.
If BIE is not really part of the number but indicates the network or the area, better leave that out. 3 characters is the max for the refs.
Repeating node numbers is no problem, as long as they have at least two other nodes in between. (Otherwise the intermediate node would point to the same number in two different directions…). Most areas in Nederland use numbers 01 to 99 all the time.
The Wegweiser are not used in the nodework planner. They are rendered by waymarkedtrails and many other maps as separate objects near the nodes (which are the intersections of the ways). For the planner it does not matter, but if there are multiple guideposts and multiple nodes you would see an awful lot of numbers 16 if you gave them all names and numbers.
In Nederland, we do not tag names and numbers on the guidepost nodes, just on the network nodes.
The name tag does not apply here, unless the route actually has name signs along the road with texts like "Bietigheim-Bissingen (15) – Bietigheim-Bissingen (16). You could put the text in the description tag, but is it really useful to tag all the node routes with the same information?
The cycle_network tag, I don’t know if that is used in applications.
In Nederland, we used to tag information like this in node networks, but it was seldom updated and never used. Now we keep it surprisingly simple.
Just the bicycle nodes with the rcn_refs, and the bicycle route relations with refs, all tagged as network:type=node_network, that’s all you need to make it display and work. This would be my advice: start with the bare minimum to make it work, and only if you (users) really miss something worth while, then add it later. Resist temptation to add everything you know.
It is not about length, but about connectivity.
The Knooppuntnet planner is currently the only application for OSM node network routing. You click or tap some nodes, the planner connects the nodes following the node2node routes, and the result can be exported to a gpx file.
The node network route relation does not need to contain the nodes. For cycling routes with backward/forward roles they even get in the way of sorting and the JOSM continuity line. Just the ways in the correct order, matching the ref tag.
In fact, because the nodes are part of the ways (first node of the first way, last node of the last way), the information is already there. The guideposts nodes are not part of the node network. They are rendered as separate nodes near the network node, and the node network routing does not use them.
The network relation is just a bag of items, a collection. Order is not important. If you try to sort it in JOSM’s relation editor it will group the nodes together and the relations, without any order.
The network relation has no real use for rendering or routing. It mainly served as an entry point for the Knooppuntnet Analysis, but the new version offers Analysis and maintenance by admin_level hierarchy.
https://experimental.knooppuntnet.nl/de/analysis/cycling
Knooppunt Maintenance/analysis by named Network will continue to be supported, though.
Hope this helps! Next time I will try some German again, with a little help of GT.
Fr Gr,
Peter Elderson