[Tagging] network tag on route relations

[Paul Johnson]

On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 11:48 AM Robert Skedgell <rob at hubris.org.uk> wrote:

> On 12/07/2020 15:48, Mike Thompson wrote:
> > 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.
> How do you know the scope of a network if there is no tag to indicate
> that member routes belong to it?
>
> The very short NCN route 425 in south-east London is network=ncn because
> it's a Sustrans route. THe scope of the route is very local, but the
> scope of the network is national. Without the network tag, how would a
> renderer or router determine whether it was an ncn, rcn or lcn? All
> three exist in Greater London.
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4247567
>

Ideally?  Make it work like the route=road networks.  "network=UK"
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200712/4935562d/attachment.htm>