[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

More information about the Tagging mailing list