[Tagging] network tag on route relations
pelderson at gmail.com
Mon Jul 13 06:58:43 UTC 2020
You might want to have a look at routes in Europe:
Zoom and pan a little to get a feel for the extent of the route networks in
Europa and how they relate to countries. Bicycle networks (second tab) are
also very dense.
By contrast, the similar view of the US:
This is shown thanks to the consistent network tagging. I feel that trying
to implement a scheme meant for hierarchical road networks within a
country, would maybe work in the US, but in Europe it would do more damage
than good, even if it were possible.
Just "consistency" is not worth it. Is there a more compellent reason?
Vr gr Peter Elderson
Op zo 12 jul. 2020 om 16:49 schreef Mike Thompson <miketho16 at gmail.com>:
> According to the wiki, 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
> 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) 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.
>  https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:network
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging