[Tagging] Proposed features/Connecting of routes - RFC

Kytömaa Lauri lauri.kytomaa at aalto.fi
Thu Mar 14 10:23:21 UTC 2013


>Description:
>type=route - this is a route
>route=road - this is a route for motorcars
>network=e-road - this is a cars' route, which is related 
>to E-road network

IMO network=* should be read as "is a route, which is a 
part of the E-road network". These connections are not
a real part of the agreed-on network, but local roads and
links that act as a tool to route between them. Therefore,
I'd say it would be better to differentiate these already
at the network tag; say, network=e-road_link

Also, they exist where two E-roads intersect at a grade
separated junction, but the connecting links are not a 
part of either route relation. If they were a part of the 
e-road relations, there would also be some other onramp 
link roads, ones that get traffic from local roads and
which are guideposted just as the connecting ramps
between actual E-roads. There's less room for random
inclusions, when these instruments to routing are a
separate network=*, one which osm mappers are
constructing on their own.

Btw, maybe just a tag would suffice?

>e-road=A_link - this is a connecting route between two 
>European routes

What are A and B class E-roads? Which one should one use, 
when it's a connection between an A and a B class route?
Even if they don't exist now (do they?), they might exist 
in the future.

-- 
Alv



More information about the Tagging mailing list