<div dir="ltr">O, did you ever walked along a walking network ? :-) The one in my neighbourhood (Rivierenland) changes almost yearly: farmers that decide that a route can no longer pass over their land, new paths are opened, and sometimes, nodes are just moved a few meters for whatever reason.<div>
The network Kempense Netevallei has many nodes with only 2 routes. It's obvious that new routes will be added as soon as the paths are opened to the public. Perhaps, after the governments bought the ground form the current landowners.<br>
<div><br></div><div>I've heard that several changes where planned for the cycling networks in Flanders. Probably because new cycle path where constructed or due to new road layouts.</div><div><br></div><div>So both the routes and the collection of route (== the network) changes.</div>
<div><br></div><div>I've said several times on the Belgian mailing list that one should revisit all networks again every year, just to keep them up to date. BTW, the maps of Rivierenland that could be bought from the tourist office used the old nodes for several years. Some websites that use the "official" information from the Flemish tourist office had the same problem. Only OSM was up-to-date :-)</div>
<div><br></div><div>BTW, I'm not asking for retagging. I just pointed out that it could be done.</div></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>regards</div><div><br></div><div>m</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 9:54 PM, Frank Little <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:frankosm@xs4all.nl" target="_blank">frankosm@xs4all.nl</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="FONT-SIZE:12pt;FONT-FAMILY:'Calibri';COLOR:#000000">
<div>Could you please explain why you believe route relations are likely to
change, necessitating an update to the network relations? Once a cycle node
network has been established, there are few changes (few new routes). Older
networks may be updated with a few new nodes and new relations. But (at least in
this area) it does not happen very often. The same would be true for walking
node networks.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But any changes to the specific roads and paths in a route relation do not
affect the validity of a route relation which is entered in a (cycle node)
network relation. That is one of the advantages of having both route relations
and cyclenode network relations which contain them.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Duplicating a connecting route relation so that it can bear the name of two
network relations would indeed be nonsense. There is only one set of route signs
between the two networks (specifically, between a node in each of the respective
networks), so we tag the connection once and enter it in OSM once. The route
does however belong in both networks, so it naturally is placed in both network
relations.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Retagging is IMO pointless. It adds nothing and is no better than what we
already have.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>What are the arguments for making substantial changes to all the node
network relations in the Benelux and near parts of Germany? (The answer cannot
be: because the wiki makes us do it. If the wiki does not represent the way we
do things, please feel free to update the wiki.</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div style="FONT-SIZE:small;TEXT-DECORATION:none;FONT-FAMILY:"Calibri";FONT-WEIGHT:normal;COLOR:#000000;FONT-STYLE:normal;DISPLAY:inline">
<div style="FONT:10pt tahoma">
<div> </div>
<div style="BACKGROUND:#f5f5f5">
<div><b>From:</b> <a title="marc.gemis@gmail.com" href="mailto:marc.gemis@gmail.com" target="_blank">Marc Gemis</a> </div>
<div><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, July 16, 2014 9:15 PM</div><div class="">
<div><b>To:</b> <a title="tagging@openstreetmap.org" href="mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">Tag discussion, strategy and related
tools</a> </div>
<div><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Tagging] "Relations are not categories" excepted for
"type=network" ?</div></div></div></div>
<div> </div></div><div class="">
<div style="FONT-SIZE:small;TEXT-DECORATION:none;FONT-FAMILY:"Calibri";FONT-WEIGHT:normal;COLOR:#000000;FONT-STYLE:normal;DISPLAY:inline">
<div dir="ltr">There is still problem with the "connection" routes. That are
routes whose start and endpoint belong to different networks. Right now they are
placed in both network relations and given the role 'connection' in the network
relation.
<div> </div>
<div>Duplicating them in order to give them 2 different network names, is bad.
Whenever the route has to change, one has to change it twice, or one gets
inconsistencies. There is also something as "every object is represented only
once in OSM".
<div> </div>
<div>Putting the network name solely on the nodes might solve this. Until now, a
node only belongs to one walking network. However it could belong to a cycling
and walking network, hence, my previous proposal to include the network type in
the network:name tag.<br></div>
<div> </div>
<div>So all problems for retagging could be solved, one could write a program to
do this. I leave it to others to decide how urgent this retagging is.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>regards</div>
<div> </div>
<div>m</div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Tagging mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>