[OSM-talk] NCN refs - consistency

[David Earl]

On 12/07/2007 10:21, Dave Stubbs wrote:
> On 12/07/07, David Earl <david at frankieandshadow.com> wrote:
>> On 12/07/2007 09:21, Andy Allan wrote:
>> > On 7/12/07, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On 7/11/07, Peter Miller <peter.miller at itoworld.com> wrote:
>> >>> Sustrans also has regional routes (ncr) but we don't have any in 
>> Suffolk to
>> >>> my knowledge. We do have regional routes, for example 'Suffolk Costal
>> >>> Route'. I haven't encoded these but proposed using rcn_ref.
>> >> Can we please *not* invent a new tag for every possible source of
>> >> routes. In the netherlands that are dozens of organisations that make
>> >> cycling routes and we're certainly not proposing adding a new tag for
>> >> each.
>> >>
>> >> We need something like:
>> >>
>> >> cycle_route=foo;bar;baz
>> >> bar:ref=A110
>> >> bar:name=Bloemenroute
>> >> baz:ref=A111
>> >> baz:grade=5
>> >
>> > Umm, I don't understand. Isn't baz:ref a new tag? How is that any
>> > different from what we're proposing with rcn_ref?
>> >
>> > Andy
>>
>> The point is that, yes they are new tags, but they don't need
>> documenting and defining separately for every value of 'baz', because it
>> falls into the same definition as ref, name etc., but relates the ref,
>> name etc together.
>>
> 
> This works fine as long as the 'baz', 'foo', and 'bar' values are
> defined and there is a nice convention. ie: use 'ncn' for NCN national
> routes, and 'lcn' for London routes etc.
> 
> What we have effectively then is a separate documented tag for each
> one, but with an added piece of meta-data for anything with an
> abstract concept of a route. This probably helps the editors more than
> the renderers as they still need to know to show ncn routes in red and
> lcn routes in blue etc.
> 


No, you missed the point. baz,foo,bar are choices by the mapper. They 
are merely arbitrary ids to tie the group of tags together, unique only 
to routes within a single way; it doesn't mater what they are called.

As I said, there needs to be an additional tag to say what kind of route 
it is. In my version of this you'll see I had
   route=var1;var2;...
and
   route:var1=ncn
   route:var2=bus
etc

If you're worried about clashes with other tag names (name:language is 
one) then we could do
   name:route:var1=... ref:route:var1=...
or
   ref_route:var1=... name_route:var1=...

David