[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - value 'basic_network' for keys 'network:type', 'lcn' and 'lwn'

[JochenB]

Am 17.11.2021 um 19:43 schrieb Sarah Hoffmann:
> It just seemed to be the right thing to do. After all it made the
> routes instantly visible on all hiking maps. Ten years into mapping the
> network, here is the most important lesson I have learned:
>
>     Using relations to model the network was a Big Mistake.
>
> Relations are complicated to handle. They don't fit the concept. And they
> will cause confusion and disputes between mappers. (Feel free to read
> the most recent fallout within the Swiss community:
> http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/pipermail/talk-ch/2021-June/010972.html
> The gist of it is that mappers will try to define routes in the network
> leading to different ideas of how the network should be built.)

I deliberately suggested both types of mapping because mappers reported
to the German Forum who prefer a tag on the ways or who have observed
that this is the predominant practice in some regions.

In Germany, however, as in Switzerland, the use of relations has largely
become established. We are not faced with the question of whether we are
using relations or values on the ways.

On the one hand, we are faced with the question of how we can
distinguish the relationships between the network connections and the
thematic routes. That is what my proposal is about.

The other question is how do we cut down the giant relations with up to
4,000 members. It's not part of my proposal.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20211119/213c4819/attachment.htm>