[Tagging] network tag on route relations

Peter Elderson pelderson at gmail.com
Sun Jul 12 22:07:00 UTC 2020


Well, recreational routes and networks simply are not that organized, and jurisdiction or authority doesn't apply to most of them. I guess that is why the values are more generic. 

I still don't understand why you tag "US" while it's obviously a bunch of roads in the US. or Interstate when the road clearly crosses state lines. I think that"s more redundant than tagging "we classify this route as a regional route", even though it might cross two national borders in a few places and half the roads are outside our borders, and we don't know the current operator or provider.

Peter Elderson

> Op 12 jul. 2020 om 23:41 heeft Mike Thompson <miketho16 at gmail.com> het volgende geschreven:
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> 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).
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20200713/dd0389cc/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list