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

[Dylan Semler]

On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 6:10 AM, Adam Killian <vitki at bonius.com> wrote:

>
> Minh Nguyen wrote:
> > Ngày 3/11/09 8:48 PM, Paul Johnson vie^'t:
> >> Spencer Riddile wrote:
> >>
> >>> 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.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Plus there are areas in the US that are already using the ncn/rcn/lcn
> >> convention so cyclemap renders things properly.  This breaks down pretty
> >> nicely for cycleways that front US and Interstates as well as the 2
> >> designated NCNs in the US (as ncn), state owned routes as rcn and city
> >> and county maintained routes as LCN (such as the 40 Mile Loop and
> >> Portland/Salem/Eugene's bicycle boulevards and city greenways).
> >>
>
>
> I did those Pennsylvania trails when the cyclemap first came out under
> the rationale that a US state is about the same size as a European
> country. As you say, to get them to render at similar zoom levels. I
> know a state is not a nation, but neither is it a region.
>


So I don't mean to be a pain but whatever happened to the "Don't tag for the
renderers" rule?  I thought that was pretty fundamental advice for tagging
but people seem to be ignoring it in this thread.  I don't know anything
about US or British bike routes but if they are not ncn then they shouldn't
be tagged ncn, right?  If a renderer is not rendering OSM data properly,
then the solution is to fix the renderer, not break OSM.  Maybe I don't
understand the situation enough?

Dylan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20090312/ddc5f448/attachment.html>