Talk:Numbered-node cycle network

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 00:36, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

A "bike-by-numbers" sign

• ... that the international numbered-node cycle network gives more freedom to cycle arbitrary routes across Europe? Source: "The advantage over previous systems is the great freedom with which routes can be planned"[1], details [2](note that the text is by an internationally-recognized expert cited elsewhere by others on Wikipedia; there are also sources in Dutch, German, or French, I could cite it from those.)

• Reviewed: ...pretty sure I have, is there any way to check? Could do another. Holothuria fuscopunctata
• Comment: Caption could be shortened to the point of mystery. Open to better suggestions for hooks.

Created by HLHJ (talk). Self-nominated at 01:31, 25 April 2021 (UTC).

• Interesting article. Makes me want to take a biking vacation in Europe. The article is within policy, new enough, and long enough. Te hook fact is verifiable to the cited reference, and the length is fine. I am assuming in good faith that the self published source is indeed by an established expert, and is therefore ok per the policy at WP:BLOGS. The only thing holding up an approval is completing the QPQ. Please take time to review an article. Thanks.4meter4 (talk) 00:47, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

  Don't you think the caption for the picture is a bit too long? (It's nearly 200 characters – a hook to itself!) I'd suggest trimming it after the first eight words. I've left a note on the nominator's talk page regarding their unused QPQ reviews. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:22, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• Good point, I hadn’t considered the caption text. I agree it needs to be paired down.4meter4 (talk) 23:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks, Reidgreg! I was unsuccessfully looking for that algorithym in a hurry. I've used Holothuria fuscopunctata. The caption is pretty long. Maybe something about the signage system having been described as perfect for those with no sense of direction? Or ' A "bike-by-numbers" sign'? Or something about "One can follow signs like these across a large and expanding area of Europe"? 4meter4, thank you for the review; do you have ideas on the caption? There are a lot of pretty useless sources consisting of tourist boards asserting that they are on the network and their area is great :); apparently household day trips are being popular recently. HLHJ (talk) 00:07, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I probably would have used Signage for the numbered-node cycle network so it has the same phrasing as the bolded text and readers can more quickly spot it and follow it to the article. But A "bike-by-numbers" sign also sounds good. Since these are sentence fragments (no verb) they don't need terminal punctuation. – Reidgreg (talk) 10:43, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• Would a wikilinked A "bike-by-numbers" sign work? HLHJ (talk) 14:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• The Wikidata lang links need fixing before this goes up. HLHJ (talk) 00:11, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I think I've fixed this by merging Q106575415 into Q12909606, an older existing wikidata item. In order to do it, I had to remove Commons category:Cycle node networks as the existing item used Category:Bicycle route networks. You may want to move any media to the latter category, or do a category merge at Commons. – Reidgreg (talk) 10:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for the merge,Reidgreg. Despite the Dutch wp article conflating the two, numbered-node networks are a subcategory of bike (technically cycle, tadpole recumbents etc. too) route networks. For instance, National cycling route networks are contrasting non-modular non-numbered networks of long-distance named cycle routes. I think I organized this ontology on Commons; would it also make sense on Wikidata? HLHJ (talk) 14:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
• Part-fixed. Commons:Category:Bicycle route networks is still a bit odd-looking and probably needs rationalizing. But this article's entry looks fine. HLHJ (talk) 04:25, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Excellent. QPQ is done, and the other issues are fixed. This can be promoted.4meter4 (talk) 15:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Inspiration?

I wonder if this was inspired by the system of road signs of Luxembourg? In the 1970s in Luxembourg at every rural junction or hamlet there were signs pointing in each direction which gave the distance both to the next junction or hamlet and the distance to the next major city. It made it very easy to navigate and to be sure that you were on the correct route.Bill (talk) 02:15, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Usefulness for utility and long distance cycling

This article paints a quite false picture of what this network is for. The knooppunten are few and far between and the routes between them meander. They're more likely to take you on a rough path which takes a detour to see a windmill than they are to take you on a direct route on a smooth cycle-path to wherever it is that you're going. As such, this network is almost useless for utility cycling and completely useless for long distance cycling. For those things you mostly need to ignore the knooppunten and follow the signs with place names on them, either paddestoelen (mushroom) or conventional flag style signs as these give the cyclist a direct route to somewhere useful. There are many thousands of signs giving direct routes. The use case for the knooppuntennetwerk is basically tourists who don't know the area who would like to make a short trip around the countryside.

I've added a reference to bike touring in the lede. It would be great to have some sources on the actual use; if a statistical analysis was done, or an established expert like Mark Wagenbuur wrote about it, for instance, we could use that. The density varies a lot by region and by country; some route planners let you pick the fastest route or a scenic one, and some German sources tout their networks as "sichere, direkte und komfortable Radverkehrsverbindungen" and as transport infrastructure. Some networks seem to include existing pathway networks specifically designed for utility cycling, or purpose-designed long-distance cycle routes. Of course, saying that something is useful for something doesn't make it so! Do please post any sources you can find and I'll add the info (unless you do it, do please feel free). HLHJ (talk) 02:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

How are the nodes numbered?

Are the numbers picked out of a hat or is there some formal numbering process? Reducing the likelihood of numbers being duplicated near each other would surely be essential. On average how far apart are the nodes? Presumably there are more in more densely populated areas? Is there a master plan? What happens to the neighboring numbering when a new cycle route is built? Likewise what happens if it is decided another intermediate node must be added for wayfaring clarity. Are the numbers just made up as new areas are added into the knooppunten network?

It would be helpful for transport engineers to have an understanding on how the numbering process is implemented. They would then know how to introduce this wonderful system into their own networks. Thanks in advance for any further information or links to design documents! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.218.18.193 (talk) 07:26, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

User:139.218.18.193, these are excellent questions; I wrote most of the article and don't know the answers, which as you say would improve the article. I've reposted this query at the Wikipedia Reference Desk (which will move when it gets archived, so future readers may need to search the archive).

Each country, or in the case of balkanized Belgium each region, has a master plan with central admin. The distance between nodes varies a lot. I know they almost never change the number of an existing node, and seek to reduce nearby duplicates and near-duplicates, but I think they might just rely on having 99 numbers to ensure they can add new ones (including interpolating them) without confusion. I suspect the civil servants responsible may just make the numbers up; they'd probably gladly tell you, and are very likely to speak excellent English. Mark Wagenbuur might also know. Sorry I can't be more helpful! I can try and get you contact info for the responsible numbering bodies if you want it, since I can understand the languages. HLHJ (talk) 01:43, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Since the only absolute requirement on the numbering for the system to work is that "no node links to two (or more) other nodes that have identical numbers to each other", I think it would be easy enough for someone to allocate numbers manually. The only complication would be on boundaries between different allocation authorities; they would have to decide who allocates their own numbers first, then the adjacent authority can allocate numbers (for nodes whose links cross the boundary) while being sure not to break the requirement defined above. With 99 numbers available, it would be advisable, and fairly easy, to ensure duplicate numbers are not very close (to make routes easier to follow, and navigational errors easier to correct).

Somewhere, there is a mathematician who will give you an algorithm that will produce an ideal numbering for any given graph. The trouble is, when you add a new route to the graph (especially one using existing nodes), re-running the algorithm will probably require you to re-number many existing nodes - which would make nonsense of all current maps and routes. You might as well do it manually all along. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 19:46, 31 July 2022 (UTC)