[Talk-us] Expand the network=* tag in bicycle relations to more cleanly handle non-UK situations?

Paul Johnson baloo at ursamundi.org
Thu May 9 18:37:49 UTC 2013

I have to wonder if we're not running into UKisms that don't apply to the
US at all, similar to what we ran into with road routes.  Perhaps another
scheme is needed, similar to how road networks work out.  I've run into
similar issues with local cycleways, where the LCNs really ought to be
divided two more levels, with INCOG transportation cycleways as one network
and Riverparks Authority recreational cycleways as a lower level of network.

So, something like this?

network=US (AASHTO USBRs)
network=US:OK (Oklahoma state cycleways)
network=US:OK:Tulsa (INCOG local cycleways)
network=US:OK:Tulsa:Parks (Riverparks, La Fortune County Park, other
recreational cycleways that are part of the cycleway network, but in a
scenic/recreational capacity and usually not open 24/7)

This may necessitate retcon tagging on some spaces (network=UK:LCN, etc),
maybe not.  Granted, this isn't totally hashed out and I'm just throwing
science at the wall and seeing what sticks.  Obviously I'm missing the core
premise of this thread, interstate routes that have the same steering
committee.  I just wanted to hash out an idea here since the UKism of
LCN/RCN/NCN is just broken in North America unless we're talking about
relatively centralized and all-inclusive systems with few operators
competing for the same namespace rarely seen outside of Oregon and British
Columbia on this continent.  I'd love to hear what folks think about making
network in bicycle relations more in line with what we have for road

On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 1:09 PM, stevea <steveaOSM at softworkers.com> wrote:

> I agree with Greg.  Numbering systems having hierarchical levels appear to
> be designed so that both numbers don't clash, as well as "longer routes
> should be in higher levels."  For the latter reason, Greg gives excellent
> examples.  I had a similar question regarding a not-short (but not long, 39
> km Skyline To The Sea) hiking trail and didn't know whether to put it into
> the local or regional level. Seeing as it connects two counties (while it
> somewhat rides the boundary of those two counties) to the ocean I decided
> the correct level was "regional."
> Yes, these are quite frequently judgement calls, but I think using the
> wisdom of length ("geographic extent") and adding an operator tag (if
> appropriate or known) can guide us properly.  It is not always just
> federal, state and local governments that fit into a strict hierarchy, as
> private/NGO/volunteer routes certainly do exist.  We simply must do our
> best effort at harmonizing these together, and I think we are on the right
> track by applying simple, sane guidelines like these.
> Is this "coding for the renderer?"  Maybe it leans in that direction, but
> it is more like "coding for the semantics of our map" as because we really
> do have hierarchical levels for (hiking, biking...) routes, that makes it
> OK in my mind:  consumers of OSM data have come to expect these levels, so
> let's continue to respect them even when we must coin something that isn't
> strictly defined or doesn't fit into the shackles of government-defined
> hierarchy.  If some de-tangling might posit a better, richer set of
> semantics, let that discussion live in the future when reasons and ideas
> are forthcoming and answers can emerge and flourish.
> SteveA
> California
>  James Umbanhowar <jumbanho at gmail.com> writes:
>>   The question is what network level should it, if at all, be tagged.
>>  > Currently, there are three network levels, local/regional/national
>>>  that have been used.  In other countries, these apply to different
>>>  levels of government that officially sanction the cycle route. In the
>>>  US there are several bicycle routes that are sanctioned by AASHTO.  In
>>>  contrast, an analagous tag for hiking networks applies these levels
>>>  simply according to the spatial extent of the hiking trail and
>>>  optionally adds a operator tag for the organization that plans and
>>  > maintains the trail.
> Greg Troxel <gdt at ir.bbn.com> answers:
>  As long as network level denotes a degree of spatial extent rather than
>> a specific naming scheme, I'd say East Coast Greenway should be
>> national.   (In contrast, "Interstate" is both a notion of scale and a
>> specific numbering authority.)
>> My take on network levels for bike/hiking/etc. kinds of routes is that
>> they are clues as to the geographic extent and thus the area from which
>> people might care.  So in the US
>>   local: a few towns (Minuteman Bikeway, Cape Cod Rail Trail), not of
>>   interest to those not thinking about the state
>>   regional: covering most of a state (Midstate Trail (MA), Long Trail
>>   (VT)), and notable to those thinking about a multi-state region, but
>>   not really notable on the national scale
>>   national: covering enough area to be notable at national scale
>>      Appalachian Trail
>>      Pacific Coast Trail
>>      EC Greenway
> ______________________________**_________________
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-us<http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20130509/1d0a3b64/attachment.html>

More information about the Talk-us mailing list