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

Marc Gemis marc.gemis at gmail.com
Wed Jul 16 20:11:16 UTC 2014


O, did you ever walked along a walking network ? :-) The one in my
neighbourhood (Rivierenland)  changes almost yearly: farmers that decide
that a route can no longer pass over their land, new paths are opened, and
sometimes, nodes are just moved a few meters for whatever reason.
The network Kempense Netevallei has many nodes with only 2 routes. It's
obvious that new routes will be added as soon as the paths are opened to
the public. Perhaps, after the governments bought the ground form the
current landowners.

I've heard that several changes where planned for the cycling networks in
Flanders. Probably because new cycle path where constructed or due to new
road layouts.

So both the routes and the collection of route (== the network) changes.

I've said several times on the Belgian mailing list that one should revisit
all networks again every year, just to keep them up to date. BTW, the maps
of Rivierenland that could be bought from the tourist office used the old
nodes for several years. Some websites that use the "official" information
from the Flemish tourist office had the same problem. Only OSM was
up-to-date :-)

BTW, I'm not asking for retagging. I just pointed out that it could be done.


regards

m


On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 9:54 PM, Frank Little <frankosm at xs4all.nl> wrote:

>   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 <marc.gemis at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 16, 2014 9:15 PM
> *To:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
> <tagging at openstreetmap.org>
> *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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140716/8a67b437/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list