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

[Peter Elderson]

Sorry for the delay, I meant to post this earlier. My bad!
We have discussed the arguments again in the Dutch OSM forum. The Belgium
OSM forum did not respond, except for vmarc who took active part in the
Dutch forum discussion. The German OSM forum had some positive response but
no specific details. They have discussed the same problems earlier.

The only new argument from this tagging list was that the key network_type
or network:type is not very clear; it does not show what the difference is
with the key network. I thought that was a valid point, I thought of two
alternatives but mappers thought those were wrongfooting new mappers and
that's even worse than confusing them.

I am sorry to say that some mappers already had started to add the new tag
to cycle node networks even before we reached consensus.

The Dutch consensus (with a touch of expert Belgian input and no objection
from Germany) is:

*We add the tag network:type=node_network to all the junction nodes, to all
the node2node route relations, and the node network relation of the node
network.*

This applies to all recreational node networks: all transport modes, and
all geographical scopes.
Note that the key is not new. There already was some usage, mainly in
Spain, thought it wasn't documented. We had a quick look, it doesn't
conflict with our use.

When done, rXn in itself is no longer reserved for node networks. Node
networks can be separated easily and completely from linear routes. This
means tagging regular regional routes (linear routes) will once again be
possible in Nederland, Belgium and Germany. We actually have quite a few of
those, the are now tagged as national routes even when they are entirely
within a particular region.
The exception has been undone.

I will be happy to answer any questions arising from this.

Fr gr Peter Elderson


Op di 10 sep. 2019 om 19:49 schreef s8evq <s8evq at runbox.com>:

> I see that network:type=node_network has been added to the wiki:
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:network%3Drwn&diff=next&oldid=1897551
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:route%3Dbicycle&diff=next&oldid=1866174
>
> Was there consensus on this in the end? I didn't follow the whole
> discussion.
>
>
> On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 16:52:47 +0200, Peter Elderson <pelderson at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > LS
> > With the arrival of cycling node networks, the Dutch, German and Belgian
> > mappers decided to claim (hijack)  the network value rcn for those node
> > networks. This exception was copied with the claim of network=rwn for the
> > walking node networks.
> >
> > We are currently discussing in the three communities how to coreect this
> > exception and return rcn and rwn to their intended use. To do that, we
> need
> > another way to identify (members of) a route network as (members of) a
> node
> > network.
> >
> > 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. Nothing
> > else has to change, which also means that renderers and data users who
> > don't change anything, will not notice anything! But if they want they
> can
> > make use of the separation and handle node networks different than
> non-node
> > networks.
> >
> > Notice that no new key or value is proposed here. If new network config
> > types arise, a new value for network_type can accommodate that.The method
> > is applicable for all transport modes and geographical scopes.
> >
> > Thoughts, anyone? What did we forget? Shoot!
> >
> > Fr gr Peter Elderson
> > _______________________________________________
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190910/f09aa128/attachment-0001.html>