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

Andy Allan gravitystorm at gmail.com
Tue Aug 28 10:56:20 BST 2007


On 8/28/07, Peter Miller <peter.miller at itoworld.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks Andy, sounds good; The general message seems to be that lcn is used
> as the tag or tag prefix for information to do with the local cycle network.
> Similarly with rcn and ncn. I fully agree that route=ncn should be
> deprecated. Using a combination of lcn_ref and lcn it will be possible to
> construct a model that can be used for rendering and also potentially for
> routing.
>
> I agree that in addition to the lcn=yes tag there is the potential to have
> other values in the future to indicate the quality of the route, 'no',
> 'poor' and 'excellent' might be useful additions for routing. However, for
> lanes and tracks we already have tags 'cycleway=track' and 'cycleway=lane'
> tags for physical infrastructure so I don't think that information belongs
> in lcn.

Fair point. Maybe someone will find a need for the flexibility for
other administrative purposes.

> I have tagged some cycle lanes/tracks this way in Ipswich and it would
> be good to know if you will be rendering from it, I suggest you do this by
> changing the colour of the appropriate road edge (blue is conventional) :)
> If you do render from it then I will complete the tagging.

"Render, and They Will Tag" is my new motto! :-)

Cheers,
Andy

> To be clear though, just because a road has a lane or track does not make it
> 'recommended for cyclists' and part of the local cycle network. It might
> just make it a little less dangerous so it is really important to keep tags
> about lanes/tracks separate from tags about the local cycle network just as
> the same is true for signed routes which again don't necessarily imply a
> good route.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Peter
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Andy Allan [mailto:gravitystorm at gmail.com]
> > Sent: 28 August 2007 09:49
> > To: Peter Miller
> > Cc: talk at openstreetmap.org
> > Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] A new highway tagging scheme - thinking about
> >
> > 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
> > http://www.gravitystorm.co.uk/osm/?lat=6803040.44631&lon=-
> > 221228.46028&zoom=12&layers=B00
> > 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.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Andy
>
>




More information about the talk mailing list