<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 28.11.21 um 01:48 schrieb Brian M.
Sperlongano:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAMrfQx0yS_WVsSmSbUqPpPWjZ=yELjWy750JZe1nUvnsDG5+Xw@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">On Sat, Nov 27, 2021 at 5:02 PM JochenB <<a
href="mailto:JochenB@wolke7.net" moz-do-not-send="true">JochenB@wolke7.net</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<div>Am 24.11.2021 um 05:10 schrieb Adam Franco:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="auto">As I've been reading this long
discussion the thought that keeps coming up in my mind
is that "relation are not categories": <a
href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations_are_not_categories"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations_are_not_categories</a></div>
</blockquote>
<div dir="auto">
<div dir="auto">These giant relations are bad, but they
are not categories. They would be categories if one
could also recognize without these relations that the
ways are part of the network. But this information is
only mapped in OSM when the ways are included in the
relation.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I would beg to differ, as these giant relations seem
quite specifically to be categories. I see them as no
different from taking every way that is part of the US
Interstate Highway System and placing them in a single
relation called "Interstate Highway System". Surely the US
Interstate Highway System is a "network" as the roads are
all interconnected. However, there is absolutely positively
no need to shove them all into a relation. Instead they are
all members of individual route relations, tagged
type=route, route=road, network=US:I.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>It seems that the challenge here is that you have all of
these cycling ways which are certainly part of an
interconnected network, though they are not part of any
named and numbered route.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I see this as very simple - we have a tag for this,
network=lcn[1]. These ways are all part of a local cycling
network, so tag them that way.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The wiki page for network=lcn indicates that this should
be tagged on route relations, however, I note 2,500 usages
of that tag on ways. While this is small compared to the
38,000 usages on relations, it's clearly in use on ways
directly. I would propose to solve this problem quite
simply by updating the documentation to reflect this
real-world usage -- network=lcn is is being used on ways,
and could be tagged directly on highway=cycleway features.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>If you want to query for the "basic network", now you
just query for highway=cycleway + network=lcn.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>[1] <a
href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:network=lcn"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:network=lcn</a></div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>I try to add not too much information in this discussion, we
shouldn't discuss on the tagging only ways versus relations too
much here, for the proposal aimed at another thing. <br>
</p>
<p>But: I think it is really unfeasible to avoid the relations. <br>
</p>
<p>* Quite special situation but really a thing where I have no
other solution: We have situations where the "basic network"
crosses other routes that are signposted as well but there are
strictly separated so that if you come from one route you won't
see the signs of the other. You only give a representation of that
if you create route relations. If you only tag the ways then you
can't discriminate the possibility that there are signposted
branches on the crossing (which make up a node). (<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Segubi/Elemente_NRW-Radwegenetz#Crossing_of_different_networks">Examples</a>)
<br>
</p>
<p>* I join the strong opinion that the routes in mention are also
routes in osm-sense, they differ from streets as you have no
characteristics of the ways as in streets, the bicycle routes use
all kinds of ways "as a guest" the ways are not continuously
cycleways. For cars: A motorway is a motorway, a national street
is a national street, they may not use temporarily a foot path for
a few 100 meters and continue again as a motorway. As Peter
Elderson stated - this would be close to tagging for the renderer.
<br>
</p>
<p>("If you want to query for the "basic network", now you just
query for highway=cycleway + network=lcn." doesn't work! And you
would have to tag the nation wide network with lcn, where there
have been lots of discussions on it without an agreement for over
a decade.)<br>
</p>
<p>* A agree that the huge network relations are not useful, and
that these risk to be as useless as a mere collection (which the
superrelations like "Radverkehrsnetz NRW" in fact are not. These
are distinct entities which you can define on the basis on
ground). A reduction to at least linear route relations makes it
easier to maintain the network as you can check and correct the
small units that you have seen on ground instead of searching for
the single ways and handling the branches which may be missing in
the data.</p>
<p>Sebastian<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>