[OSM-talk] NCN refs - consistency

David Earl david at frankieandshadow.com
Thu Jul 12 10:40:47 BST 2007

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

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


More information about the talk mailing list