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

[Jo]

We have been tagging these networks this way since the beginning of
Openstreetmap.org. The network relations combine the nodes and the route
relations for a given network of numbered walking/cycling/horsback riding
network.

equestrian networks get rhn. lhn. nhn and ihn don't exist, as far as I know.

Just like Marc I've also been doing it this way since that is how it was
described on the wiki.

At some point I had grouped the network relations in collection relations.
And I admit this was to make it possible to download the whole bunch in one
go with JOSM.

Since the advent of Overpass API this is not needed anymore, so those
collection relations were removed. Those collection relations were indeed
categories and they served the purpose of something which was actually
needed back then.

The combination of route and network relations works and it is an elegant
solution for this type of numbered node networks. The network relations are
not categories as such.

Just like you aren't able to change how PT is mapped, because of too
'complex' when rendering the beast, you won't be able to change this. So
let it be or remap them all yourself. While you're at it, also make sure
all the route relations become continuous once again. This is something I'm
doing every once in a while, as route relations break easily. I created
scripts in JOSM to help perform this task. I don't feel like rewriting
these scripts, just because you want to change how these networks have been
mapped since the very beginning.

The task of checking and correcting the whole bunch usually takes a few
weeks, I'll gladly leave the task for you.

I also think that if you still feel like changing this, you'll have to talk
to all contributors in Belgium, The Netherlands and Germany in Dutch,
German and French (there are some of these networks in Wallonia too now
around Marche-en-Famenne, since about 1,5 year).

You can't expect everybody to read this mailing list, which is kind of moot
anyway, just like the imports list. People decide something here and on the
wiki, it gets "approved" and half decade later it still doesn't get
rendered.

Polyglot




2014-07-16 12:52 GMT+02:00 Marc Gemis <marc.gemis at gmail.com>:

> I never said it was not possible to keep the nodes in the route relation.
> There was no need to do this so far.
>
> I don't have 2 relations for each route, I have N+1 for N routes. :-)
>
> I just followed what people did before me. I just explain what we are
> doing, don't shoot the messenger :-)
>
> As said before, I don't care, I would happily use any tagging schema for
> this. I'll also admit that your approach looks simpler right now. (until I
> find the first exception that makes things more complex :-) )
>
>  I'm just not going to translate your message in Dutch (French is probably
> not needed) and German and tell the communities, "hey guys, you have been
> tagging this wrong for the past 4 or 5 years"
> So I fear that you overestimate the "power" of the tagging mailing list.
> Why would it be enough that a handful of people, from outside the involved
> communities, in mailing list in a foreign language decide that it's bad
> tagging, that people will suddenly start tagging in a different way ?
> Or that they would retag thousands of nodes and hundreds of relations ?
>
> I can be wrong, but I don't believe that your messages here will have
> sufficient impact to redo the whole thing.
>
> regards
>
> m
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Pieren <pieren3 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 11:54 AM, Marc Gemis <marc.gemis at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > right now the nodes are not placed in the route relation. Although some
>> > older relations might contain them.
>>
>> Then you admit it is possible to keep the nodes in the route relation.
>> Where now you have two relations instead of one just to avoid a tag
>> "network:name". Don't tell me again it's to avoid a repetition of
>> tags, we do this for many features in OSM. It's not for simplicity :
>> the whole structure is more complicate to understand (more relations
>> and different levels). Again, the real reason is to avoid a query in
>> the database.
>>
>> > 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 think this single list and the wiki, instead of ten local lists and
>> forums, is more appropriate, no ?
>> I don't have preconception about such relation, if someone find a
>> valid argument/example which explains it's not using relations as
>> categories.
>>
>> Pieren
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140716/3d62b590/attachment.html>