[Talk-us] U.S. Bike Route 76

[Spencer Riddile]

Chris,

What would the advantage/disadvantage be of using a different network name ("usbrs" vs. "ncn") for U.S. bike routes.  The author of open cycle map would have to adjust their symbolization if we started using "usbrs".  Is it good to try to keep some international standard even though trail and route systems may be different in various ways.

Spencer




________________________________
From: Chris Lawrence <lordsutch at gmail.com>
To: Spencer Riddile <riddile_spencer at yahoo.com>
Cc: talk-us at openstreetmap.org
Sent: Monday, March 9, 2009 5:23:46 PM
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] U.S. Bike Route 76

On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 2:43 PM, Spencer Riddile
<riddile_spencer at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I'm working on tagging Bike Route 76 in the Montgomery County, VA area.  Is
> anyone else working on tagging national bike routes in the U.S.?
>
> Here is the combination of tags I'm using:
>
> type=route
> route=bicycle
> network=ncn
> ref=76
>
> Does that look correct?  Can I add a name for the route (e.g. bike route
> 76)?

Assuming you're tagging using relations, that format is correct
(although you could adopt a different network name than "ncn" which is
of British origin; using "US" would make sense here); if you are not
using relations, although I think it's probably better if you do, then
the ncn_* tags Adam suggested should be used directly on the ways.

With relations, you could use name=Bike Route 76.


Chris
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20090311/b218f893/attachment.html>