[Tagging] network tag on route relations

Mike Thompson miketho16 at gmail.com
Sun Jul 12 21:40:15 UTC 2020


On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 9:53 AM Peter Elderson <pelderson at gmail.com> wrote:

> Aren't Interstate and US evident from the geographic extent as well?
>
Yes, that is my point, or at least it is evident with the current mapping
practice.  Road routes are not tagged (at least not according to the wiki)
with network=nrn/rrn/etc.  Whether a road network is national, or
otherwise, is evident for two reasons:
1) All the routes with the same network tag will be spread across some
geographic extent. So, one could see that there are routes all across the
US with "network=US:I" and could conclude that this is a national network.
2) By the network tag itself, for example, in the "network=US:I" tag, there
is no smaller jurisdiction indicated after US, so it must be a national
network.

If a hiking route was tagged with network=US:FS (Forest Servies) for
example, one could see that (if that practice was generally followed), that
there the Forest Service operates hiking routes all across the US (and not
anywhere else), and thus that such a network was national in scope.  And,
the scope would be evident from the network tag itself, as there is no
smaller jurisdiction following "US" in the network tag.

In anyevent, my main point is we should be consistent and treat all route
relations the same.  If it is desirable to explicitly know the scope, why
not have a "scope" tag, or leave the scope in the network tag, and have a
new tag for "specific_network" (or whatever folks want to call it).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200712/efc906c6/attachment.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list