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

[Warin]

On 5/9/19 2:42 am, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> 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 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 currently have the "network=ncn|rcn|lcn" tag which broadly identifies the
> _importance_ of the route.
>
> 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.)
>
> So I'd suggest that instead of network_type=, you add route_type= .
>
'Type' does not add information. If the key is only to have one value .. why not use the proposed value as the key?

node_network=yes/no ?


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190905/f2ddfa37/attachment.html>