On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 10:16 AM, Richard Fairhurst <rich...@systemed.net> wrote:
> I think the root (route?) problem is that we're tagging everything as > "networks" even if they're not. I've been as guilty as anyone of this: when > I mapped the Four Castles Cycle Route around Abergavenny, I tagged it as > lcn, "just to get it to render". > > But it isn't a network, really. It's just a route. Ooh, a golden opportunity to point out (to Richard of all people :-) ) that the key / value pairs are just arbitrary UTF8 strings and can mean whatever we want them to mean. So the letters n-e-t-w-o-r-k could mean "importance classification" and n-c-n could mean "cycling route of national importance" and we can all go home happy. After all, the letters "ncn" is a historical accident. I thought sustrans called each route something like NCN 4, when it turned out they call them NCR 4 (see wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCR_4 ). The "lcn" was - despite some revisionist history that I've been 100% part of - clearly started as the London Cycle Network, and the s/London/local/ bit was revisionism on my part to head off arguments. The network tag seemed appropriate when all these ncn, lcn, rcn were supposedly each ending in the work "network", but as soon as someone asked about a standalone local route then I said don't worry about it, just use lcn, nobody cares whether a route is part of a larger network or not. And all over the world people are getting along fine with the ambiguities. Perhaps when all the tags are meaningless foreign words people worry less about them. So don't let the repeated use of the letters n-e-t-w-o-r-k get in the way of mapping! Cheers, Andy _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
