[OSM-talk] A new highway tagging scheme - thinking about

Andy Allan gravitystorm at gmail.com
Tue Aug 28 09:48:33 BST 2007

On 8/28/07, Peter Miller <peter.miller at itoworld.com> wrote:

> We also have tags for signed routes (lcn_ref, rcn_ref, ncn_ref) which are
> fine for official signed routes. Andy from GravityStorm suggests using
> 'route=lcn' for non-signed cycle routes which is a good concept and might be
> sufficient but currently muddles the cycle network in with 'routes' for
> buses and pub crawls.
> http://www.gravitystorm.co.uk/shine/cycle-info/

I've actually been considering trying to deprecate route=lcn etc,
simply because it's a muddle and hard to deal with. I was thinking
about using another tag scheme, namely lcn=* (with corresponding rcn
and ncn, of course)

lcn = yes - a local cycle network
lcn = proposed - a proposed route. Gives me a mechanism to sort out
lcn = *some other thing* - gives us flexibility to tag other things -
perhaps lcn=onpavement, lcn=onroad, lcn=buslane or who knows what. I
would assume any value to indicate yes (c.f. flexibility), unless
known otherwise (e.g. 'proposed' or 'no')

lcn_ref would still be the numerical reference for a given cycle route.

Basically it makes it much easier to tag, since there's no
semicolon-delinated-'route'-tag stuff going on. I'm interested in
considered comments regarding this.


More information about the talk mailing list