[OSM-talk] Cycle junction networks (was "Unsurfaced road" and "Byway"?)

[Freek]

On Tuesday 18 December 2007, Ben Laenen wrote:
> In short: a route marked like "36-12" is quite confusing and makes the
> map almost unreadable. If you need to assign a reference to the ways
> between junctions, then "36-12" could do, but don't show those on the
> map then, just show the junction numbers.
>
> > Maybe cycle_node = 83 on a given node with rcn = yes on the ways? I
> > don't know how meaningful the refs on the ways are - would someone
> > describe a given section of road as being on the "83-97" network?
>
> Yeah, current practice as described on Dutch wiki pages is like that:
> Use rcn, ref="45" on junction nodes, and ref="45-43" on the routes, but
> with a map like you've mentioned, I'm looking for a better way to tag
> them, preferably a new network value ("network=cjn" for cycle junction
> network perhaps?).

I feel I have to reply to this, because I think it was me who proposed the 
ref="num1-num2"-style tagging. However, it was really a temporary solution, I 
think no one would 'describe a given section of road as being on the "83-97" 
network', the junctions are much more important. I hope we can agree upon a 
standard tag for these junctions (I don't really care about the actual name) 
and get it rendered like in Ben's pictures.

Concerning the value for the network tag, I do not see a problem with the 
current rcn-scheme. The junction-system is (as far as I know) /the/ Dutch 
regional cycle network. Plus, it sounds internationally applicable :-)

-- 
Freek