[OSM-talk] Cycle junction networks (was "Unsurfaced road" and "Byway"?)
osm.list at randomjunk.co.uk
Wed Dec 19 11:00:39 GMT 2007
On 19/12/2007, Foppe Benedictus <foppe.benedictus at knkv.net> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> Dave Stubbs schreef:
> >> In short: a route marked like "36-12" is quite confusing and makes the
> >> map almost unreadable. If you need to assign a reference to the ways
> >> between junctions, then "36-12" could do, but don't show those on the
> >> map then, just show the junction numbers.
> >>> Maybe cycle_node = 83 on a given node with rcn = yes on the ways? I
> >>> don't know how meaningful the refs on the ways are - would someone
> >>> describe a given section of road as being on the "83-97" network?
> >> Yeah, current practice as described on Dutch wiki pages is like that:
> >> Use rcn, ref="45" on junction nodes, and ref="45-43" on the routes, but
> >> with a map like you've mentioned, I'm looking for a better way to tag
> >> them, preferably a new network value ("network=cjn" for cycle junction
> >> network perhaps?).
> > It sounds like people are adding the refs to the ways simply because
> > the nodes refs don't currently appear. If that's the case then we can
> > remove these from the DB if we just change the rendering, and we don't
> > actually need a new network type at all?
> I guess that is a correct assumption, at least it holds for me. Though
> because it needs a different type of rendering, it would be nice to make
> it a cnn (cycle node network as Lambertus suggested) to avoid confusion.
My main problem with calling it cnn instead of rcn is that it will
stop you from having different scales of network in the same
country... so you couldn't then have a national network which worked
like this, and a regional network which also worked like this in the
same area without getting very confused.
Personally I don't see the confusion at all... one system tags ways,
the other tags nodes. But if you are worried then maybe you could tag
with both? So you'd have rcn=yes and routetype=cnn -- or similar. We
shouldn't actually need this for rendering anyway.
> I used the relations (why is there talking about tagging ways?) and gave
> the nodes that should have the number the role: stop_number.
It's a lot easier to tag ways with the current tools, and for the most
part there's little reason to stop doing so unless you have
It may be nice to use relations, although if you do that it'll take me
much longer to get them to render. Unfortunately it isn't as simple a
process as just pulling the data off of the ways/nodes because the
planet import process looses all of the node information unless the
node is a POI... a POI in this case is an osm node which has
[nrl]cn/[nrl]cn_ref or other "interesting" tags.
More information about the talk