[Tagging] Walking & Cycling Node Network tagging: undoing the hijacking of rcn and rwn

[Peter Elderson]

Richard Fairhurst <richard at systemed.net>:

> Peter Elderson wrote:
> > The network values identify transport mode and scope of routes, and
> > these "dimensions" also apply to node networks. We do not want to
> > add another dimension (configuration type) to the network=*
> > values of routes.
> >
> > Instead, we are thnking about just adding a tag to identify segment
> > routes as parts of a node network. The nodes themselves do not need
> > this, since they ARE nodes and have a xxn_ref tag.
> >
> > In short, we are thinking to simply add the tag network_type=
> > node_network (or network:type=node_network) to the node2node
> > network routes.
>
> I have a strong interest in this proposal. :) [1]
>
> If I understand you rightly, a route like
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1844941 would get an extra
> network_type=node_network tag. Nothing else would change. (Correct me if
> I'm
> wrong.)
>

You are correct.


> You say "we don't want to add another dimension" but you are effectively
> doing that; you're just doing it by adding a new tag rather than adding a
> value. That's not _necessarily_ a problem but it would be better done in an
> extensible way that might be useful for other tagging scenarios, rather
> than
> special-casing this one scenario.
>

We do want to add a new aspect: network configuration. We just do not want
to add this new aspect into the network tag, because it already has two
aspects in it: transport mode and geographical scope. Therefore we decided
to just add the new information independent of the other two.

This simply allows us (Nederland, Belgium and Germany) to return to the use
of rXn as it was intended. We then no longer need the exception that rXn is
a node network in these countries only, and a regular regional route (chain
of ways) in the rest of the world.


> We currently have the "network=ncn|rcn|lcn" tag which broadly identifies
> the
> _importance_ of the route.
>

More specific, it gives the transport mode and the geographical scope,
including icn for international cycling routes. Same for hiking, and usage
for other transport modes (horseriding, canoe, skating) is emerging, and so
are regular (chain of ways) routes and node networks including special node
network planners.


> What we do not have is a tag to identify the _character_ and _purpose_ of
> the route. All bicycle routes (except MTB) get lumped together as a generic
> route=bicycle. This is increasingly a problem as routes are devised and
> signposted for performance cycling, bikepacking, and so on. For example,
> there are two new performance cycling routes in Wales which I'd like to map
> (https://www.visitsnowdonia.info/ffordd-brailsford-way), but which would
> be
> misleading if tagged in the same way as other NCN/RCN/LCN routes in
> Britain.
>
> You're proposing a tag called "network_type", but it's a tag for the route,
> and what you're using it to describe is the character and purpose of the
> route. (The network is already mapped in the network super-relation.)
>

That is not the idea. Maybe I wasn't clear. The idea is to add the network
setup or configuration in a clear and unmistakeable way.

You bring up an interesting point: the superrelation. The superrelations
are containers of a mix of route relations and nodes but they don't give
how these elements are connected. This is the case for both regular routes
(think long distance, international, variants) and node network
superrelations. So data users using routes would have to determine
membership of a superrelation, then analyse the superrelation to find out
whether a route is part of a node network, or part of another type of
superrelation.
At this time, local walking node networks are merging with provincial
walking node networks and regional walking node networks into one big
national walking node network with connections and branches to Belgian and
German walking node networks. The orginal relatively small local node
networks already were very difficult to maintain and to use, but on the
cureent larger scale the are unmanageabe and unusable.

Adding the information as a tag to the individual network routes solves
this problem as well.


> So I'd suggest that instead of network_type=, you add route_type= .
>
> This would achieve the same purpose; be semantically more appropriate; and
> be extensible to other routes where "route=bicycle" alone does not
> adequately capture the character and purpose of the route.
>
>
I disagree. The information is that the route is part of a particular
network setup. This does not alter the route itself. It's not about the
character of the route, it's about the configuration of the network it's a
part of.


> Richard
> cycle.travel
>
>
> [1] I believe cycle.travel is the only OSM-based router that includes
> nodes
> in its turn-by-turn instructions, e.g.
> https://cycle.travel/map?from=51.0623,2.8582&to=51.0913,2.8531 .
> cycle.travel also has a few localised rules for rendering in the
> Netherlands
> and Belgium to cope with the sheer density of the node network.
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190904/3d33d410/attachment.html>