[OSM-talk] Cycle route improvements
gravitystorm at gmail.com
Tue Feb 5 17:11:15 GMT 2008
On Feb 5, 2008 4:43 PM, Ben Laenen <benlaenen at gmail.com> wrote:
> All the better if there's an existing tag already, but how does that
> work with current tagging, I thought it
> was "type=route", "route=bicycle", "network=ncn", and will this be
> another tag "ncn=yes|proposed|etc"? Isn't the "ncn=yes" redundant
> information then?
Sorry, see Dave's translation to relations-speak, which uses slightly
different tags. This would be state= on the cycle route relation -
state=proposed on a relation gets handled the same as ncn=proposed on
> I see this:
> It looks random to me, but it could be "deterministic chaos" of
> course :-)
(/me adds a few more zoom levels to Antwerpen)
It looks rubbish either way. As do the the nodenet numbers, but that's
on my todo list too.
> > My preference would be to draw the lines side-by-side, but that's
> > what I'll call the "tube map problem" since mapnik can't do that.
> That could work as well of course, though it looks much harder to
> implement compared to the wider vs thinner lines... But it could be a
> problem when there are lots of routes running in parallel (like the
> opposite sides of a canal or a dual carriageway even).
> > It's common for routes to be distinguished on signs by colour as much
> > as name or reference. I think they should be mapped with
> > signed_colour = yellow, since that makes it clear. Renderers can then
> > know that the colour is important, but still choose to ignore it if
> > they wish (or map the colours to a chosen palette, or keep all the
> > local routes in blue and put little coloured borders on them or
> > similar). Using "signed_colour" clarifies what we mean.
> I see, I was trying to avoid real colour names, but I guess we could
> further extend this colour tag to things like bus routes. I don't like
> signed_colour though, as that suggests that it's the colour of the
> signs, and I could well see someone adding "signed_colour=green" for
> all ncn, rcn and some lcn routes, since all those signs are green.
yeah, I get your point. How do we make clear that we mean "the Green
route and the Yellow route"
> I just use "name=X" for that currently (since it's the relation that has
> this name tag, not the road, but don't ask me how to put that name on a
> starting point, could the starting point be a member of the route
> relation as well?)...
Again, just name= works fine when using relations, ncn_name= would be
needed for ways.
As for the nodes, theoretically you could have a node in the relation,
but the importing process for osm2pgsql would ignore it (even our
route-relations-aware version that Dave developed). That's why
nodenets currently have a separate node. Unless Dave corrects me on
More information about the talk