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

Marc Gemis marc.gemis at gmail.com
Wed Jul 16 09:54:52 UTC 2014


right now the nodes are not placed in the route relation. Although some
older relations might contain them.

I think you will not find a lot of people in favor of changing the tagging
scheme for those networks, just because you don't like the network relation.
Anyway, if you want to change it, I propose you write a proposal with all
the required changes, and post them to the Belgian, Dutch and German
mailing lists and forums.

I'm not going to stick out my neck for this.

regards

m






On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Pieren <pieren3 at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Marc Gemis <marc.gemis at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > 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
>
> No, the tags on the node should be moved to the appropriate route
> relation where you also set the network_:name.
>
> > 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
>
> Is this question related to the "network" relation ?
>
> > 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 ?
>
> Create two route relations, one per network.
>
> Pieren
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140716/7fb3696e/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list