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

[Frank Little]

Could you please explain why you believe route relations are likely to change, necessitating an update to the network relations? Once a cycle node network has been established, there are few changes (few new routes). Older networks may be updated with a few new nodes and new relations. But (at least in this area) it does not happen very often. The same would be true for walking node networks.

But any changes to the specific roads and paths in a route relation do not affect the validity of a route relation which is entered in a (cycle node) network relation. That is one of the advantages of having both route relations and cyclenode network relations which contain them.

Duplicating a connecting route relation so that it can bear the name of two network relations would indeed be nonsense. There is only one set of route signs between the two networks (specifically, between a node in each of the respective networks), so we tag the connection once and enter it in OSM once. The route does however belong in both networks, so it naturally is placed in both network relations.

Retagging is IMO pointless. It adds nothing and is no better than what we already have.

What are the arguments for making substantial changes to all the node network relations in the Benelux and near parts of Germany? (The answer cannot be: because the wiki makes us do it. If the wiki does not represent the way we do things, please feel free to update the wiki.



From: Marc Gemis 
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 9:15 PM
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
Subject: Re: [Tagging] "Relations are not categories" excepted for "type=network" ?

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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20140716/da21fedc/attachment.html>