<HTML><HEAD></HEAD>
<BODY dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000">
<DIV>The cyclenode networks we are talking about are specific, published
networks with route signage and node signs and/or information panels. They are
not a loose connection of nodes which mappers have decided to gather together in
OSM for convenience. You will find them in Belgium (where they were invented),
the Netherlands and some parts of Germany. (And possible elsewhere if people
have decided to use the same system.) They are observable (route signs, node
signage, information panels and maps) and exist verifiably in the real
world.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>There are separate route relations for all the roads and paths signed
between two nodes and these are included in network relations which contain
those route relations as well as the nodes.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>It would not be convenient (or probably possible) to include all the roads
and nodes which make up a complete network in a single relation, so that is why
we have route relations. And it is convenient for all of us who try to maintain
them in OSM to have all the separate route relations collected in network
relations.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The same is true for other node networks mentioned (walking/hiking routes,
equestrian, etc.)</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>To answer Pieren’s original question: No, you cannot begin removing these
from the database. </DIV>
<DIV>The wiki needs to follow practice, not the other way round.</DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV
style='FONT-SIZE: small; TEXT-DECORATION: none; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri"; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline'></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt tahoma">
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #f5f5f5">
<DIV style="font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A title=baloo@ursamundi.org
href="mailto:baloo@ursamundi.org">Paul Johnson</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, July 16, 2014 4:59 PM</DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=tagging@openstreetmap.org
href="mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org">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
style='FONT-SIZE: small; TEXT-DECORATION: none; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri"; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline'>
<P dir=ltr>I'm going to have to side with Pieren against the network
relation. Just spitballing, but that would roughly mean one network per
county, and an additional 1-8 networks per state, occasionally one network per
city, and at least 3 for national in the US alone, bringing nothing to the table
that can't be accomplished in a far more manageable way in what would be each
member relation. And I'm only talking road networks, and not the tens of
thousands of potentially mappable transit, bicycle, hiking networks. It's
like hydroponic tomatoes: a great way to seriously complicate growing without
much payoff except in very few edge scenarios. </P>
<P dir=ltr> </P></DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>