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

stevea steveaOSM at softworkers.com
Fri May 10 05:23:35 UTC 2013


This is exactly what I meant by "detangling" (what we have) with 
"reasons and ideas" being forthcoming.  See, already, they are 
emerging, and perhaps eventually, even soon, answers will emerge. 
This is not a bad initial proposal, as it uses the "colon syntax" of 
highway networks, but it would obviously need additional work by 
those more familiar with the rich existing and potential kinds of 
bike/hike networks we have here, THEN some rendering support to 
implement something potentially harmonious with the existing 
lcn/rcn/ncn/icn scheme for cycleways (and lwn/rwn/nwn/iwn for hiking 
routes).  That was/is a "good start" as it worked in the UK where OSM 
started, but I agree we are "back-forming" it to work (well) in the 
USA.  We can do better.

There are a whole set of other topics, like how "state=proposed" is 
used (it is, thankfully, supported as dashed lines in Cycle Map -- 
thanks, Andy -- but it is no longer supported in the lonvia.de 
renderers -- I have emailed Ms. Hoffman about this).  But we can hold 
off on those discussions, as I think the hierarchy of routes and 
differing (non-government) operators taking hold of the name spaces 
comes first.

So, it looks like your science is sticking to the wall a bit, at 
least from here.  Further refinements of this proposal, ways to 
harmonize it with existing schemes, renderer-writing folk:  anybody 
else want to chime in?


>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 relations.

More information about the Talk-us mailing list