[Tagging] network tag on route relations

Robert Skedgell rob at hubris.org.uk
Sun Jul 12 22:51:49 UTC 2020


On 12/07/2020 22:50, Mike Thompson wrote:
> 
> 
> On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 10:49 AM Robert Skedgell <rob at hubris.org.uk
> <mailto:rob at hubris.org.uk>> wrote:
> 
>>
>> 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.
> I am not saying get rid of the network tag, I am saying we should be
> consistent.  In the above case, if  network=UK (instead of network=ncn),
> one would know it is national. First because the UK is a nation and
> there is no smaller jurisdiction that follows "UK" in the tag, and
> because there would be cycle routes all over the UK where network=UK. 
> 
> Using this method, which seems to be in use for road routes, would allow
> us to indicate the specific network which a route is part of, instead of
> just the "scope" of the network.  So in the US, for a hiking route I
> could say network=US:FS and everyone would know that it is a national
> network operated by the US Forest Service. One might say that is what
> the "operator" tag is for, but some agencies or jurisdictions operate
> multiple networks, and this would be reflected in the network tag.
> 

Perhaps prefixing with the country code might work, but you would still have
to convince authors of rendering and routing services that a change from
network=ncn to network=GB:NCN is worth implementing.

Starting with UK presents another problem for consistency, as it's not
an ISO 3166-1-alpha-2 country code, just the abbreviated name of the
country.



More information about the Tagging mailing list