Re: [Tagging] Relations are not categories excepted for type=network ?

2014-07-17 Thread Pieren
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

Re: [Tagging] Relations are not categories excepted for type=network ?

2014-07-17 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am 17/lug/2014 um 10:38 schrieb Pieren pier...@gmail.com: 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

Re: [Tagging] Relations are not categories excepted for type=network ?

2014-07-17 Thread Frank Little
] 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, then I cannot argue any more. And if we tolerate the first, we cannot

Re: [Tagging] Relations are not categories excepted for type=network ?

2014-07-16 Thread Jo
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 marc.ge...@gmail.com: In Belgium and The

Re: [Tagging] Relations are not categories excepted for type=network ?

2014-07-16 Thread Pieren
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 8:17 AM, Jo winfi...@gmail.com 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

Re: [Tagging] Relations are not categories excepted for type=network ?

2014-07-16 Thread Janko Mihelić
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

Re: [Tagging] Relations are not categories excepted for type=network ?

2014-07-16 Thread Marc Gemis
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com 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

Re: [Tagging] Relations are not categories excepted for type=network ?

2014-07-16 Thread Marc Gemis
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

Re: [Tagging] Relations are not categories excepted for type=network ?

2014-07-16 Thread Marc Gemis
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

Re: [Tagging] Relations are not categories excepted for type=network ?

2014-07-16 Thread Pieren
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 11:07 AM, Marc Gemis marc.ge...@gmail.com 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

Re: [Tagging] Relations are not categories excepted for type=network ?

2014-07-16 Thread Pieren
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Marc Gemis marc.ge...@gmail.com 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,

Re: [Tagging] Relations are not categories excepted for type=network ?

2014-07-16 Thread Richard Mann
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

Re: [Tagging] Relations are not categories excepted for type=network ?

2014-07-16 Thread Marc Gemis
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

Re: [Tagging] Relations are not categories excepted for type=network ?

2014-07-16 Thread Pieren
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 11:54 AM, Marc Gemis marc.ge...@gmail.com 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

Re: [Tagging] Relations are not categories excepted for type=network ?

2014-07-16 Thread Marc Gemis
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

Re: [Tagging] Relations are not categories excepted for type=network ?

2014-07-16 Thread Michael Kugelmann
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: [Tagging] Relations are not categories excepted for type=network ?

2014-07-16 Thread John Packer
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 michaelk_...@gmx.de: Am 16.07.2014 05:23, schrieb Marc Gemis: In Belgium and The Netherlands

Re: [Tagging] Relations are not categories excepted for type=network ?

2014-07-16 Thread Michael Kugelmann
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

Re: [Tagging] Relations are not categories excepted for type=network ?

2014-07-16 Thread Jo
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

Re: [Tagging] Relations are not categories excepted for type=network ?

2014-07-16 Thread Pieren
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 3:02 PM, Jo winfi...@gmail.com 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,

Re: [Tagging] Relations are not categories excepted for type=network ?

2014-07-16 Thread Jo
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

Re: [Tagging] Relations are not categories excepted for type=network ?

2014-07-16 Thread 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, occasionally one network per city, and at least 3 for national in the US alone, bringing nothing to the table that

Re: [Tagging] Relations are not categories excepted for type=network ?

2014-07-16 Thread Jo
Again, you are obviously not talking about the same thing. 2014-07-16 16:59 GMT+02:00 Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org: 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

Re: [Tagging] Relations are not categories excepted for type=network ?

2014-07-16 Thread Paul Johnson
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 9:57 AM, Jo winfi...@gmail.com 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

Re: [Tagging] Relations are not categories excepted for type=network ?

2014-07-16 Thread Jo
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 ba...@ursamundi.org: On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 9:57 AM,

Re: [Tagging] Relations are not categories excepted for type=network ?

2014-07-16 Thread Marc Gemis
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

Re: [Tagging] Relations are not categories excepted for type=network ?

2014-07-16 Thread Pieren
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 5:23 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote: On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 9:57 AM, Jo winfi...@gmail.com 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.

Re: [Tagging] Relations are not categories excepted for type=network ?

2014-07-16 Thread Marc Gemis
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 5:55 PM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com 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

Re: [Tagging] Relations are not categories excepted for type=network ?

2014-07-16 Thread Frank Little
: 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 for type

Re: [Tagging] Relations are not categories excepted for type=network ?

2014-07-16 Thread Jo
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.

Re: [Tagging] Relations are not categories excepted for type=network ?

2014-07-16 Thread Pieren
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 6:33 PM, Jo winfi...@gmail.com 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

Re: [Tagging] Relations are not categories excepted for type=network ?

2014-07-16 Thread Frank Little
tools Subject: Re: [Tagging] Relations are not categories excepted for type=network ? On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 6:33 PM, Jo winfi...@gmail.com 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

Re: [Tagging] Relations are not categories excepted for type=network ?

2014-07-16 Thread Marc Gemis
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,

Re: [Tagging] Relations are not categories excepted for type=network ?

2014-07-16 Thread Marc Gemis
does not represent the way we do things, please feel free to update the wiki. *From:* Marc Gemis marc.ge...@gmail.com *Sent:* Wednesday, July 16, 2014 9:15 PM *To:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools tagging@openstreetmap.org *Subject:* Re: [Tagging] Relations are not categories

Re: [Tagging] Relations are not categories excepted for type=network ?

2014-07-16 Thread Frank Little
to? 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 ? snip Putting the network name solely on the nodes might solve this. Until now, a node only belongs to one walking

Re: [Tagging] Relations are not categories excepted for type=network ?

2014-07-16 Thread Frank Little
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 ? O, did you ever

Re: [Tagging] Relations are not categories excepted for type=network ?

2014-07-15 Thread Michael Kugelmann
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

Re: [Tagging] Relations are not categories excepted for type=network ?

2014-07-15 Thread Marc Gemis
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