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

[Marc Gemis]

There is still problem with the "connection" routes. That are routes whose
start and endpoint belong to different networks. Right now they are placed
in both network relations and given the role 'connection' in the network
relation.

 Duplicating them in order to give them 2 different network names, is bad.
Whenever the route has to change, one has to change it twice, or one gets
inconsistencies. There is also something as "every object is represented
only once in OSM".

Putting the network name solely on the nodes might solve this. Until now, a
node only belongs to one walking network. However it could belong to a
cycling and walking network, hence, my previous proposal to include the
network type in the network:name tag.

So all problems for retagging could be solved, one could write a program to
do this. I leave it to others to decide how urgent this retagging is.

regards

m

p.s. as someone asked about the number of objects, here are some numbers:

Detail TotalThe Netherlands BelgiumExplanation HikingBicycle HikingBicycle
Length (km)59.871 6.17633.810 4.03315.850 Total length in kilometers.
Networks 19362 <http://osma.vmarc.be/en/networks/nl/rwn> 64
<http://osma.vmarc.be/en/networks/nl/rcn> 27
<http://osma.vmarc.be/en/networks/be/rwn> 40
<http://osma.vmarc.be/en/networks/be/rcn> Number of networks. Nodes23.320
5.6279.389 3.7374.567 Number of network nodes.Routes 29.7146.994 12.0085.263
5.449Number of routes.this is taken from http://osma.vmarc.be/


On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Pieren <pieren3 at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 6:33 PM, Jo <winfixit at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm having a look at it. It could of course be converted automatically.
> > Since I have the scripts to walk through the hierarchy already.
>
> Again, I'm not asking to delete them *right now*. I'm checking if the
> proposal is "fair" and is not breaking the "relations are not
> categories" principle. If no, I could modify the wiki and recommend
> some solutions (like using query the appropriate tags on the
> collection itself instead of creating a relation for that). Existing
> relations could be modified along the way when people are contribution
> around them.
> @Frank I agree that the wiki should formalize the practice but not all
> practices in OSM have to be followed.
>
> 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/20140716/5e87edf2/attachment-0001.html>