[OSM-talk] Route relations on cycle map

[Dave Stubbs]

On 30/10/2007, David Earl <david at frankieandshadow.com> wrote:
> 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

I mentioned both of these in my original mail. As I said there, it's
up to the mappers to decide whether or not to add them. The renderer
doesn't pay any attention to them, but simply relies on the uniqueness
of the network=ncn. I think I did add these tags to the examples I
gave.

Basically I wasn't going to get in on the general discussion of route
tagging, so just decided to tell people the bare minimum required to
get a relation to display, and leave the rest as an exercise for the
reader.

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

This is an interesting one. It kind of depends what you are trying to
do with it. You can follow the same plan that OSM uses for everything
else in implying what ncn means depending on what country you're in,
if that works.
ncn was chosen because it is already being used to tag cycle routes
outside of the UK. There's some in the netherlands, oslo, stockholm
and probably elsewhere.

I've actually added uk_ncn as an alias to ncn in the renderer, so
either will work just fine. There are aliases for uk_rcn and uk_lcn
too.
If people want to map different network types, send an e-mail to andy
(or me, or the talk list) with a vague idea of how it should be
rendered (ie: what colour) and what levels, and it'll get put on the
todo list of things to add, and probably added.

>
> 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.

That should basically be the status tag... everything else should be
the same/compatible. If people tag according to that page, it will
show up.

Dave