[OSM-talk-be] Fietsknooppuntennetwerk/Cycle node network

[Gerard Vanderveken]

It makes perfect sense to me and I totally agree.
But I assume you mean  ways in stead of nodes in 'So the route relations 
should only contain (a preferably) continuous set of nodes'

On top of that,  I find it handy when the route realations have a name, 
so it is easy to see which are the relations of a road.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/73069100
When they have 2 or 3 meaningful letters in front (followed by a space) 
of the numbers, you can also easily see on the hike or bike maps which 
network is in place
eg ZD 239-240 = Zuid-Dijleland from node 239 to 240
http://hiking.lonvia.de/?zoom=12&lat=50.779&lon=4.56392
With only the numbers,
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/14142
it is truncated and thus cluthering the map.
http://cycling.lonvia.de/?zoom=13&lat=50.78855&lon=4.59216&layers=FFBTT
Also when a way is part of  more than one network (hike and bike) the 
numbers don't tell which is which.
Here a good addition  could be DL for Dijleland
Alternative is to provide an osmc tag with the shortened name in it 
(probably not working for bike maps).
This tagging info for prper naming should be added to the Wiki
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Belgium/Walking_Routes#Walking_node_networks
and
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Belgium/Cycle_Routes#Cycle_Node_Networks
and maybe also in the general remarks in conventions.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Belgium/Conventions/Walking_Routes
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Belgium/Conventions/Cycle_Routes


Regards,
Gerard.


Jo wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I'm working on the cycle node network in Flanders/Southern Netherlands.
>
> I created a collection relation:
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1726882
>
> This should make it a lot more convenient to find all the 
> nodes/routes/networks involved in the rcn. Fiddling with XAPI and such 
> is not very productive... It's extremely time consuming and very error 
> prone.
>
> Which contains a network relation for each set of numbered nodes 
> (where each set contains only one time 01,02, etc) (I'm working 
> without the maps of Toerisme Vlaanderen, so I had to improvise for the 
> naming and where to make a subdivision)
>
> For the moment I'm abusing the role to add the node number. This works 
> easier and is only temporary. I'll take them all out again, when I'm 
> done inventorizing.
>
> The network relations contain the route relations. As far as I'm 
> concerned, the route relations don't need to contain the nodes 
> anymore. They are part of the ways, anyway. So the route relations 
> should only contain (a preferably) continuous set of nodes. I try to 
> have them start at the lower numbered node. If the forward and 
> backward relation don't follow the same route, I use forward/backward 
> roles. The idea I'm following is that it should be possible to go from 
> the lower numbered to the higher numbered node by following all the 
> ways without a role until ways with forward roles are met. Then all 
> the ways with forward roles until a way with a backward role is found. 
> Then skip the ways with backward roles and continue with the ways 
> without a role.
>
> All this, because I want to be able to 'validate' the routes for 
> continuity with a script/program and this will probably simplify the 
> life of the people of Fietsnet as well.
>
> I'll post an example to illustrate later on.
>
> Polyglot
>
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>Talk-be mailing list
>Talk-be at openstreetmap.org
>http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>  
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-be/attachments/20110831/d2b327ae/attachment.htm>