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

[Dave Stubbs]

>
> 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?).

It sounds like people are adding the refs to the ways simply because
the nodes refs don't currently appear. If that's the case then we can
remove these from the DB if we just change the rendering, and we don't
actually need a new network type at all?

What I would think is render the nodes with rcn_ref similar to your
dutch map, and keep rendering ways as we are now.
So the tagging changes needed would be:
 - remove rcn_ref from ways (unnecessary, and really, incorrect)
 - make sure ways are tagged with rcn=yes

You can do the same for any network type ie: ncn, lcn.

Does all of that sound reasonable?

>
> (To make matters slightly more fun: there are sometimes extra routes in
> the network here in Belgium which don't go to another junction but a
> city center for example, with signs in one direction mentioning "cycle
> junction network" and in the other one for example "city center".  Some
> alternative routes here and there would make it fun as well... But for
> now, I'm not thinking about that yet :-) let's first get the base
> right...)

rcn=alternate might be useful... currently that would be rendered the
same, but that can be changed.

The extra routes just sounds like an unnumbered route spur... it's not
really 100% necessary to reference, it should be obvious what it does
from the map. Hopefully :-)

Dave