[OSM-talk] route=ncn and route=bus on same road

Andy Allan gravitystorm at gmail.com
Fri Jul 20 17:26:02 BST 2007

On 7/20/07, Dave <osm.list at randomjunk.co.uk> wrote:
> One solution is to just ignore the route tag completely.
> For NCN the route=ncn is possibly a little superfluous -- the ncn_ref
> tag implies this. The cyclemap that Andy produced does not use the
> route tag at all.

Not quite true - it does match for both route=ncn and route=lcn, but
it won't match if you start adding semi-colons or anything to the
route tag. I did this because I wanted both the numbered and
un-numbered London cycle network parts in - where it has a number I've
just been using lcn_ref=37, and where it isn't, just route=lcn. I
haven't added both, since the route= is probably superfluous, as you
say, when it has a reference.

I'm trying to avoid bogus reference numbers (like ??), since it looks
stupid when rendered!

To be honest, I think it would be better with ncn as a tag, so ncn=yes
instead of route=ncn. In fact, it could be extended to ncn=pavement,
ncn=road, ncn=cycletrack - so ncn=foobar means it can be considered
part of the route, and if you want to distinguish between the others
you can read the tags. I'm especially trying to work out how to mark
when the pavement beside the road is the (shared) cycle path without
having to draw a parrallel cycle route (we don't draw pavements
normally, by convention.)


More information about the talk mailing list