[Tagging] network tag on route relations

Peter Elderson pelderson at gmail.com
Sun Jul 12 15:51:29 UTC 2020

Aren't Interstate and US evident from the geographic extent as well?

If deducted from geographic extent, what would be the extent for local and
regional? Would the US need an interstate tag? Would a hiking trail through
a relatively small nature area crossing boundaries between countries, be
local, regional or international?

In Europe, the classification as local, regional, national and
international is very common with long trails/routes.Different countries
'map' their recreationale routes onto this classification. I think the
classification is useful.

The n in network=..n seems redundant, the <scope>.. is very useful and
seems to meet wide acceptance among users, the .<modality>. again looks
redundant to me because route= already gives the transport.

OTOH, what's the harm? A road network is not a recreational route network,
and therefore it has different network classifications. Does not confuse
me. At all.

Best, Peter Elderson

Op zo 12 jul. 2020 om 16:49 schreef Mike Thompson <miketho16 at gmail.com>:

> Hello,
> According to the wiki[0], it seems that the network tag has different
> meanings and possible values based upon if it is applied to a route
> relation where route=road vs. route=bicycle/mtb/foot/etc.
> If I am understanding this correctly, when route=road, network= the
> specific network that the road is part of, for example, a US Interstate
> would be US:I[2]
> For bicycle/mtb/foot etc. it seems that the network tag indicates the
> scope of the network, for example a nationwide network cycling network
> would network=ncn[1]
> 1) Why can't the network tag have consistent meaning across all route
> types? For a mapper, as well as a data user, this is confusing.
> 2) The scope of a cycling/walking/etc. network should be evident from the
> geographic extent of its members, so isn't network=icn/ncn/etc. redundant?
> In any event, if the specific network is specified, it will, in most cases,
> also indicate the general scope.
> Mike
> [0] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:network
> [1]
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:network#Bicycle.2C_hiking_and_other_recreational_routes
> [2]https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:network#Hierarchical_format
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20200712/d1d7ba06/attachment.htm>

More information about the Tagging mailing list