[OSM-talk] Route relations on cycle map

[David Earl]

Sorry to jump in rather late on this - was away for a long weekend.

Dave, Can I draw your attention to
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Relations
and in particular
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Relations/Proposed/Routes

This matches yours pretty closely, but

(a) has a relation type (not strictly necessary, as route would do that, 
but was Frederick's original intention)

(b) most importantly, has a route=bicycle tag so that other kinds of 
route can be represented

and

(c) uses uk_ncn rather than ncn, just to avoid possible name space clashes.

I'm sure rendering these will help adoption enormously, but if (b) in 
particular could be part of your implementation, it would be very 
useful, and think about (c).

Do you think you could put any information about what you've done on 
that page.

Thanks
David

PS I did start tagging ncn's in Cambridge area with this but hit a bug 
in the relation stuff somewhere during uploading - however, it could be 
the duplicate way within relation problem that someone else reported 
over the weekend - I'll look.




On 28/10/2007 17:10, Dave Stubbs wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Following the introduction of relations people have been thinking up
> uses for them. One cool use is to describe routes such as buses, road
> numbering, and... cycle routes.
> 
> So, from the next re-rendering of the cycle map at
> http://www.gravitystorm.co.uk/osm/ (probably by Thursday) it will
> render cycle route relations.. so hopefully people can start using
> them :-)
> 
> The tagging scheme for the relation to be rendered is:
>  - network => either "ncn", "rcn", or "lcn" are currently rendered,
> see the cycle map key
>  - (optional) ref => the reference number for the route
>  - (optional) state => the state of the route, "proposed" is currently
> rendered dotted
> 
> The members of the relation are the ways over which the route follows.
> The ways will still need to be split in the appropriate places where
> the route turns off of a road etc.
> 
> The propsals for a more generic route description [1] suggest adding
> the following extra tags:
>  - type => "route"
>  - route => "bicycle"
>  - name
>  - operator
> These tags can be added at the mapper's discretion -- the cycle map
> renderer does not currently require them, and they will not affect the
> rendering in any way.
> 
> Some examples:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/api/0.5/relation/2716 (part of london route 5)
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/api/0.5/relation/2204 (part of UK NCN route 4)
> 
> The ncn/ncn_ref/lcn/rcn tagging of ways will still be rendered too, so
> no need to change anything if you don't want to (or if you use
> potlatch which doesn't currently do relations).
> 
> Happy tagging!
> 
> For those interested in how the relations are being imported for
> mapnik, it's just an extra python script after the osm2pgsql import
> which parses the relations from the end of the planet.osm, and runs
> some SQL to create new ways in the planet_osm_line table for each of
> the referenced osm_id's (ie: insert into planet_osm_line (ncn_ref,way)
> (select '<ref>', way from planet_osm_line where osm_id in (<relation
> members>)) ). This approach may prove to have some problems, but it
> seems to work for my current tests.
> 
> 
> Dave
> 
> [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Relations/Proposed/Routes
> 
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
>