<div dir="ltr"><div><div><div><div>You are not tallking about the same thing. We are not talking about a network of PT routes or motorways.<br><br></div>We are talking about numbered node NETWORKS, where a network relation is entirely appropriate to describe the network of nodes and the routes connecting them.<br>
<br></div>I can't help it that in the Vechtstreek, they insist on adding the nodes to the routes as well, I have been working hard to defend the idea of putting them in the network relations where they have their place. In Belgium and most parts of the Netherlands the nodes are part of the network relations and not of the route relations which connect the nodes.<br>
<br></div>Where they insisted on adding the nodes to the routes as well, I gave up.<br><br>Of course, this also means I also gave up on checking those routes for continuity in the Netherlands, hence the inconsistency.<br>
<br></div>Jo<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2014-07-16 16:10 GMT+02:00 Pieren <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:pieren3@gmail.com" target="_blank">pieren3@gmail.com</a>></span>:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="">On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 3:02 PM, Jo <<a href="mailto:winfixit@gmail.com">winfixit@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> We have been tagging these networks this way since the beginning of<br>
> Openstreetmap.org. The network relations combine the nodes and the route<br>
> relations for a given network of numbered walking/cycling/horsback riding<br>
> network.<br>
<br>
</div>Please, give me an example where the nodes cannot belong to the route<br>
relation and need specificaly a "network" relation.<br>
<div class=""><br>
> Just like Marc I've also been doing it this way since that is how it was<br>
> described on the wiki.<br>
<br>
</div>The wiki is just a "proposal". I don't remember it was discussed on<br>
any global list (checked in my archives). It was surely not discussed<br>
in France and the examples I find are personal initiatives.<br>
<div class=""><br>
> And I admit this was to make it possible to download the whole bunch in one<br>
> go with JOSM.<br>
<br>
</div>I appreciate this honesty and I could even accept such thing in<br>
earlier OSM time where we missed the tools we have today (like<br>
overpass).<br>
<div class=""><br>
> The combination of route and network relations works and it is an elegant<br>
> solution for this type of numbered node networks. The network relations are<br>
> not categories as such.<br>
<br>
</div>This is where we differ. The "netwok" is just an attribut like many<br>
others (operator, branch). We don't accept this kind of collections<br>
for restaurants, banks, etc. and we have to be consistent and refuse<br>
it for routes for the same reasons.<br>
<div class=""><br>
> Just like you aren't able to change how PT is mapped, because of too<br>
> 'complex' when rendering the beast, you won't be able to change this. So let<br>
> it be or remap them all yourself. While you're at it, also make sure all the<br>
> route relations become continuous once again. This is something I'm doing<br>
> every once in a while, as route relations break easily. I created scripts in<br>
> JOSM to help perform this task. I don't feel like rewriting these scripts,<br>
> just because you want to change how these networks have been mapped since<br>
> the very beginning.<br>
<br>
</div>It's not the question to "remap everything" but move the network name<br>
down from the relation to its members. My intent is not to remove all<br>
of such relations but see if we can reject this proposal and provide a<br>
better solution in the wiki. Then advise my local community to not use<br>
them (and remove them in long term).<br>
<div class=""><br>
> You can't expect everybody to read this mailing list, which is kind of moot<br>
> anyway, just like the imports list.<br>
<br>
</div>It's always the same. Once we have a conflict between mappers, you<br>
need a meeting point where everyone can express his opinion and put<br>
all arguments on the table. What is writen in the wiki can be the<br>
result of such discussions. Note that the wiki provides a "discussion"<br>
page and this proposal was already objected since 2009... ([1])<br>
<br>
Now, I wanted to see some real examples and followed the ones linked<br>
in the wiki:<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/20614" target="_blank">http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/20614</a> :<br>
type=network<br>
network=road<br>
description=Deutsche Bundesautobahnen"<br>
operator=Bundesrepublik Deutschland<br>
all members are route relations; route=road; tagged with<br>
operator=Bundesrepublik Deutschland<br>
<br>
This could be fixed by adding the tag "network_name=Deutsche<br>
Bundesautobahnen" in the route relations.<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/153968" target="_blank">http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/153968</a><br>
type=network<br>
network=iwn<br>
name=Camino de Santiago<br>
The first member is a route relation:<br>
<a href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1247178" target="_blank">http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1247178</a><br>
type=route<br>
route=hiking<br>
name=Voie de Soulac<br>
<br>
And, oh surprise, it belongs to 2 network relations. The second one<br>
is: <a href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3071561" target="_blank">http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3071561</a><br>
type = network<br>
network=iwn<br>
name=Way of St. James<br>
name:es=Camino_de_Santiago<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/157868" target="_blank">http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/157868</a><br>
type=network<br>
network=rcn<br>
name=Gooi en Vechtstreek<br>
More interesting, it's containing a mix of nodes and relations. Check<br>
the first relation:<br>
<a href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/150267" target="_blank">http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/150267</a><br>
type=route<br>
route=bicycle<br>
network=rcn<br>
Check the first node: <a href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/45909336" target="_blank">http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/45909336</a><br>
Well, it belongs to the same route relation...<br>
<br>
My conclusions so far:<br>
The relation is not used consistently : sometimes you have a "name",<br>
sometimes just an "operator" or "description"; the values of the<br>
"network" key are inconstant.<br>
The relation for all motorways in Germany is only a collection/category.<br>
The "Camino de Santiago" is basically a "route master" linking smaller<br>
route segments together. It's even worse here since the same long<br>
route is modelized twice in the database...<br>
The bicycle network example shows that the nodes are finally on both<br>
types of relations. This could be simplified with a tag like<br>
"network:name".<br>
Shall I continue ?<br>
<br>
Pieren<br>
<br>
[1] <a href="http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Relations/Proposed/Network" target="_blank">http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Relations/Proposed/Network</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>