<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 25/4/20 11:50 am, Andrew Harvey
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAD5Vjsunq45ew=K_EYbXyS0VvaNS2ZC6-TqKREChdDAHZUP6=g@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, 25 Apr 2020 at
10:31, Warin <<a href="mailto:61sundowner@gmail.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">61sundowner@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
My opinion.<br>
<br>
Routes go from A to B. They are not simple road segments.<br>
<br>
An example?<br>
<br>
Relation: Northbridge-Castle Cove (6282327)<br>
Tags:<br>
"name"="Northbridge-Castle Cove"<br>
"ref"="NCC"<br>
"route"="bicycle"<br>
"type"="route"<br>
"lcn"="yes"<br>
"network"="Willoughby"<br>
<br>
The above is correct.<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Looking at it again ... <br>
</p>
<p>"network"="lcn" appears to be more correct... <br>
</p>
<p>Possibly "Willoughby" could be tagged
"cycle_network"="Willoughby" see
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cycle_routes#Relations">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cycle_routes#Relations</a></p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAD5Vjsunq45ew=K_EYbXyS0VvaNS2ZC6-TqKREChdDAHZUP6=g@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<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">
<br>
It contains numerous road segments (ways). Some of these are
tagged <br>
lcn=yes. This is wrong.<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Agreed, the lcn=yes should go on the way segment (but is
redundant if a relation exists) and not on the relation.</div>
<div> <br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Example?<br>
<br>
Way: Baringa Road (794266238)<br>
Tags:<br>
"source:name"="historical"<br>
"surface"="paved"<br>
"maxspeed"="50"<br>
"name"="Baringa Road"<br>
"source"="yahoo_imagery"<br>
"highway"="residential"<br>
"cycleway"="shared_lane"<br>
"network"="lcn"<br>
<br>
There should be no "network"="lcn" on the as it does not,
by itself, <br>
form a route.<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Agreed, the network tag should go on the relation not the
way, the way itself could have lcn=yes if you know it's part
of a route but it hasn't been mapped out as a relation yet.</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Similarly I would remove
the tag "lcn=yes" on any simple way.<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Only if it's part of a network=lcn relation already, if
not it's still useful to say there is a route here, but the
route hasn't yet been mapped out as a relation.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>I would start the relation rather than use "lcn=yes". Then, in
the relation, a source can be stated (together with any comments,
description etc) that is clearly the source of the route at this
stage. <br>
</p>
<p>This would also cause it to show up on
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=7777172">https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=7777172</a> in a meaning
full way. <br>
</p>
<p>Note that this route is incomplete. <br>
</p>
</body>
</html>