ubject: Re: [Tagging] "Relations are not categories" excepted for
"type=network" ?
If you don't understand that a collection of "all bus routes from
operator XYZ in my city" is not different than a collection of "all
McDonald's restaurants in my town
> Am 17/lug/2014 um 10:38 schrieb Pieren :
>
> If you don't understand that a collection of "all bus routes from
> operator XYZ in my city" is not different
bus routes in the same network can be operated by different bus companies, but
I agree in so far as there could be a network tag with th
If you don't understand that a collection of "all bus routes from
operator XYZ in my city" is not different than a collection of "all
McDonald's restaurants in my town", then I cannot argue any more. And
if we tolerate the first, we cannot refuse the second.
Pieren
___
node networks (or walking node networks) I fear, from the responses so
far.)
From: Marc Gemis
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 10:11 PM
To: Frank Little ; Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Subject: Re: [Tagging] "Relations are not categories" excepted for
"type=network
?
From: Marc Gemis
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 9:15 PM
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Subject: Re: [Tagging] "Relations are not categories" excepted for
"type=network" ?
Putting the network name solely on the nodes might solve this. Until now, a
node only be
in the Benelux and near parts of Germany? (The answer
> cannot be: because the wiki makes us do it. If the wiki does not represent
> the way we do things, please feel free to update the wiki.
>
>
>
> *From:* Marc Gemis
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 16, 2014 9:15 PM
> *To:* Tag di
: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 9:15 PM
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Subject: Re: [Tagging] "Relations are not categories" excepted for
"type=network" ?
There is still problem with the "connection" routes. That are routes whose
start and endpoint belong to
There is still problem with the "connection" routes. That are routes whose
start and endpoint belong to different networks. Right now they are placed
in both network relations and given the role 'connection' in the network
relation.
Duplicating them in order to give them 2 different network names
tools
Subject: Re: [Tagging] "Relations are not categories" excepted for
"type=network" ?
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 6:33 PM, Jo wrote:
I'm having a look at it. It could of course be converted automatically.
Since I have the scripts to walk through the hierarchy already
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 6:33 PM, Jo wrote:
> I'm having a look at it. It could of course be converted automatically.
> Since I have the scripts to walk through the hierarchy already.
Again, I'm not asking to delete them *right now*. I'm checking if the
proposal is "fair" and is not breaking the "
I'm having a look at it. It could of course be converted automatically.
Since I have the scripts to walk through the hierarchy already.
It would mean that what is nicely where it belongs at the moment, would be
moved to tags on the nodes and the route relations, causing a
multiplication of tags.
: No, you cannot begin removing these from
the database.
The wiki needs to follow practice, not the other way round.
From: Paul Johnson
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 4:59 PM
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Subject: Re: [Tagging] "Relations are not categories" excepted
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 5:55 PM, Pieren wrote:
> your case, you don't have a predefined list of (master) routes but
> only a list of path "segments".
>
What is a list of paths other than a route ?
I totally agree with you that we could represent it without network
relation, but it's just not wo
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 5:23 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 9:57 AM, Jo wrote:
>> We are talking about numbered node NETWORKS, where a network relation is
>> entirely appropriate to describe the network of nodes and the routes
>> connecting them.
Numbered node cycle networks a
a numbered node network consists of 2 things: the nodes, which have numbers
and the routes between the nodes. Those routes are signposted between the
nodes. Currently there are route relations for the routes between the nodes
and network relations with the nodes and the routes.
Yes, one could see t
Once upon a time, I created a wiki page about the subject:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cycle_Node_Network_Tagging
This is one of the more complex situations. Most are simpler than that.
Jo
2014-07-16 17:23 GMT+02:00 Paul Johnson :
>
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 9:57 AM, Jo wrote:
>
>> W
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 9:57 AM, Jo wrote:
> We are talking about numbered node NETWORKS, where a network relation is
> entirely appropriate to describe the network of nodes and the routes
> connecting them.
>
Isn't that documented in the wiki as a "route" relation, even though in
this case, the
Again, you are obviously not talking about the same thing.
2014-07-16 16:59 GMT+02:00 Paul Johnson :
> I'm going to have to side with Pieren against the network relation. Just
> spitballing, but that would roughly mean one network per county, and an
> additional 1-8 networks per state, occasion
I'm going to have to side with Pieren against the network relation. Just
spitballing, but that would roughly mean one network per county, and an
additional 1-8 networks per state, occasionally one network per city, and
at least 3 for national in the US alone, bringing nothing to the table that
can
You are not tallking about the same thing. We are not talking about a
network of PT routes or motorways.
We are talking about numbered node NETWORKS, where a network relation is
entirely appropriate to describe the network of nodes and the routes
connecting them.
I can't help it that in the Vecht
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 3:02 PM, Jo wrote:
> We have been tagging these networks this way since the beginning of
> Openstreetmap.org. The network relations combine the nodes and the route
> relations for a given network of numbered walking/cycling/horsback riding
> network.
Please, give me an exa
We have been tagging these networks this way since the beginning of
Openstreetmap.org. The network relations combine the nodes and the route
relations for a given network of numbered walking/cycling/horsback riding
network.
equestrian networks get rhn. lhn. nhn and ihn don't exist, as far as I kno
On 16.07.2014 13:31, John Packer wrote:
but not without adding the appropriate tags to it's members
of course! I never wanted something different.
Cheers,
Michael.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/li
Kugelmann,
It's true we should delete these relations, but not without adding the
appropriate tags to it's members (else we would be throwing data away).
2014-07-16 8:20 GMT-03:00 Michael Kugelmann :
> Am 16.07.2014 05:23, schrieb Marc Gemis:
>
> In Belgium and The Netherlands a network-relatio
Am 16.07.2014 05:23, schrieb Marc Gemis:
In Belgium and The Netherlands a network-relation is used to group
together all nodes and routes of a walking network.
relations are NO CATEGORIES in OSM, that's agreed since years!
Please delete these relations.
BTW: it's not possible to keep such a re
I never said it was not possible to keep the nodes in the route relation.
There was no need to do this so far.
I don't have 2 relations for each route, I have N+1 for N routes. :-)
I just followed what people did before me. I just explain what we are
doing, don't shoot the messenger :-)
As said
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 11:54 AM, Marc Gemis wrote:
> right now the nodes are not placed in the route relation. Although some
> older relations might contain them.
Then you admit it is possible to keep the nodes in the route relation.
Where now you have two relations instead of one just to avoid
right now the nodes are not placed in the route relation. Although some
older relations might contain them.
I think you will not find a lot of people in favor of changing the tagging
scheme for those networks, just because you don't like the network relation.
Anyway, if you want to change it, I pr
It's established that we use relations for routes, because the components
are related geo-spatially to one another (in a particular order, sometimes
having particular roles such as forward/backward). If a way forms part of
multiple routes, that is fine - just make it a member of multiple relations.
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Marc Gemis wrote:
>
> Just thought of this: since a node can belong to multiple networks (cycling,
> walking, equestrian), we need a tagging scheme for the network name that
> takes this into account.
> So something like : network:rcn:name, network:rwn:name and ne
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 11:07 AM, Marc Gemis wrote:
> So we get network:name, network:operator on each node and route, right ?
Since "network" is already in use for "rwn/rcn/etc", its name could be
set in something like "network:name" or "network_name".
I don't see the point with "network:opera
Just thought of this: since a node can belong to multiple networks
(cycling, walking, equestrian), we need a tagging scheme for the network
name that takes this into account.
So something like : network:rcn:name, network:rwn:name and network:ren:name
rcn= regional cycling network
rwn= regional wa
When the name, operator,etc. has to be moved down to the routes and nodes,
we have prefix all those tags with e.g. network.
So we get network:name, network:operator on each node and route, right ?
Please note the network relations are not used to group all routes and
nodes in a country or provinc
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Janko Mihelić wrote:
> and would like to add that relations like these are a problem when you try
> to download a small bounding box, and one of those nodes gets in the way,
> and now you have to download all the nodes in that relation.
I don't understand this.
I agree with Pieren, and would like to add that relations like these are a
problem when you try to download a small bounding box, and one of those
nodes gets in the way, and now you have to download all the nodes in that
relation. There's no need for that.
But there is one advantage with those rel
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 8:17 AM, Jo wrote:
> The same is true for cycling and equestrian networks with numbered nodes.
> There are a few of those networks in Germany as well.
> These are not collections/categories. They are networks of route relations.
Well, you could do the same for all McDonald
The same is true for cycling and equestrian networks with numbered nodes.
There are a few of those networks in Germany as well.
These are not collections/categories. They are networks of route relations.
Jo
2014-07-16 5:23 GMT+02:00 Marc Gemis :
> In Belgium and The Netherlands a network-relat
In Belgium and The Netherlands a network-relation is used to group together
all nodes and routes of a walking network. This avoids that we have to
repeat the name, operator, etc. on each route (signposted path between 2
nodes) and the nodes.
m.
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 5:58 PM, Pieren wrote:
>
Am 15.07.2014 17:58, schrieb Pieren:
I discover that OSM contains 1575 relations of "type=network"
(taginfo). I guess its definition is coming from this wiki proposal:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Network
As a hint for further inverstigations: I guess this might be public
39 matches
Mail list logo
