[Tagging] "Relations are not categories" excepted for "type=network" ?

[Marc Gemis]

Just thought of this: since a node can belong to multiple networks
(cycling, walking, equestrian), we need a tagging scheme for the network
name that takes this into account.
So something like : network:rcn:name, network:rwn:name and network:ren:name


rcn= regional cycling network
rwn= regional walking network
ren=regional equestrian network (?)

both rcn and rwn are already used in the numbering of the nodes (rwn_ref,
rcn_ref). I'm not familiar with the equestrian networks

Another problem is for routes that form the connection between 2 networks.
Right now, they are placed in the 2 network relations. How would you tag
the network names for them ?


regards

m



On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 11:07 AM, Marc Gemis <marc.gemis at gmail.com> wrote:

> When the name, operator,etc. has to be moved down to the routes and nodes,
> we have prefix all those tags with e.g. network.
> So we get network:name,  network:operator on each node and route, right ?
>
> Please note the network relations are not used to group all routes and
> nodes in a country or province. When you are interested in the nodes &
> routes of 1 network you can only do this via the name of the network.
> So a spatial query won't help much in that case, although I admit that it
> might not be interesting to limit the query to a specific network and not
> to a geographical region.
>
> BTW, I wouldn't mind to start using a tagging schema that doesn't use
> network relations.
>
> regards
>
> m
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Pieren <pieren3 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 8:17 AM, Jo <winfixit at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > The same is true for cycling and equestrian networks with numbered
>> nodes.
>> > There are a few of those networks in Germany as well.
>> > These are not collections/categories. They are networks of route
>> relations.
>>
>> Well, you could do the same for all McDonald's restaurants in
>> Netherlands or all pharmacies in a network or bank branches in Belgium
>> and say "we move one tag to the upper relation to avoid its
>> repetition". What is done by such relations can be done by a query in
>> the database with one or two arguments (like the "operator" or
>> "network" tag) and a bbox (see XAPI, overpass, etc for more info).
>> Repeating the network or operator or brand name is not a problem for
>> many features in OSM. I don't see why we should create an exception
>> for footway routes.
>> As it was writen by Frederik Ramm in 2008 ([1]):
>> "Our database is a spatial database; this means that it has intrinsic
>> knowledge about the location of objects. If you want to know about all
>> footways in East Anglia, simply pass in a bounding box of East Anglia
>> and request all footways, and the collection is made for you
>> on-the-fly."
>>
>> Pieren
>>
>> [1]
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Relations/Relations_are_not_Categories&oldid=179750
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20140716/d91b8a89/attachment.html>