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, then I cannot argue any more. And if we tolerate the first, we cannot refuse the second. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Relations are not categories excepted for type=network ?
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 tag with the network name to substitute the relations. This might somehow conflict with established network=lcn nwn etc. (bad tags btw, as they are abbreviated and you need the wiki to make sense if them) cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Relations are not categories excepted for type=network ?
For me the difference between bus routes (or walking routes, or cycling routes or . routes) and a collection of McD locations, represented in OSM by POIs (or buildings), is that you can traverse a specific route only by using the roads and paths along that route but you can navigate any way you want (within reason) to get to a specific location. For me they are evidently different in nature. We are not talking about collecting all bus stops in a city independent of the routing (that would be a simple collection). It is helpful to be able to put the routes on a map. And since they are fixed and cannot be calculated at run time by a navigator, I do not see how else we can map routes conveniently in OSM. I already mentioned the reason we do not want to put ALL the roads/paths for a cyclenode network in a single relation: cyclenode networks are large (some are very big indeed). It becomes difficult to manage these with tools we have available. So we just map the routes between cyclenodes (or for busses between the two end points of a route). Putting the marked routes in route relations and putting those relations in a network relation simply reflects reality (they all belong in the same cyclenode network). The same is true for individual parts of a long-distance walking route. Those long-distance routes which have all the ways in a single relation are painful to manage with our current tools (I am thinking of mappers rather than consumers). A site like Lonvia hiking works very well with the current solution with relations and super-relations. If it ain't bust, don't fix it. Please. -Oorspronkelijk bericht- From: Pieren Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2014 10:38 AM To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools Subject: 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, then I cannot argue any more. And if we tolerate the first, we cannot refuse the second. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Relations are not categories excepted for type=network ?
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 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 pier...@gmail.com wrote: 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 Quotes: A network groups together routes that share common characteristics, e.g. a common operator, a common classification scheme (e.g. E-road network: E 1, ..., E 999), ... Use cases Person A sees a bus route with number 217 and wonders how many other bus routes exist in that city. Renderer M wants to render all German motorways using white font on blue sign (official layout), and all E-roads with white font on green sign. This can be implemented by adding rules for 20614 (view, XML, Potlatch2, iD, JOSM, history, analyze, manage, gpx) and 20645 (view, XML, Potlatch2, iD, JOSM, history, analyze, manage, gpx). Renderer M wants to render all cycle routes that belong to the D-Netz. However, there are a lot of other national cycle routes as well. Plus some attached relations examples very explicite. As raised in the discussion page, is that not exactly breaking the relations are not categories ([1]) principle ? Can we delete such relations when we meet them ? Pieren [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Relations_are_not_Categories ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Relations are not categories excepted for type=network ?
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 for all McDonald's restaurants in Netherlands or all pharmacies in a network or bank branches in Belgium and say we move one tag to the upper relation to avoid its repetition. What is done by such relations can be done by a query in the database with one or two arguments (like the operator or network tag) and a bbox (see XAPI, overpass, etc for more info). Repeating the network or operator or brand name is not a problem for many features in OSM. I don't see why we should create an exception for footway routes. As it was writen by Frederik Ramm in 2008 ([1]): Our database is a spatial database; this means that it has intrinsic knowledge about the location of objects. If you want to know about all footways in East Anglia, simply pass in a bounding box of East Anglia and request all footways, and the collection is made for you on-the-fly. Pieren [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Relations/Relations_are_not_Categoriesoldid=179750 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Relations are not categories excepted for type=network ?
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 relations, and that is protection against newbies. Newbies can delete a tag from a node because of some their strange reason, but they don't know how to remove a node from a relation. There should be tools that mimic that. Janko 2014-07-16 10:36 GMT+02:00 Pieren pier...@gmail.com: 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 for all McDonald's restaurants in Netherlands or all pharmacies in a network or bank branches in Belgium and say we move one tag to the upper relation to avoid its repetition. What is done by such relations can be done by a query in the database with one or two arguments (like the operator or network tag) and a bbox (see XAPI, overpass, etc for more info). Repeating the network or operator or brand name is not a problem for many features in OSM. I don't see why we should create an exception for footway routes. As it was writen by Frederik Ramm in 2008 ([1]): Our database is a spatial database; this means that it has intrinsic knowledge about the location of objects. If you want to know about all footways in East Anglia, simply pass in a bounding box of East Anglia and request all footways, and the collection is made for you on-the-fly. Pieren [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Relations/Relations_are_not_Categoriesoldid=179750 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Relations are not categories excepted for type=network ?
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 understand this. Why would you need to download all the nodes in the relation to move the node around or even to delete it from the relation ? regards, m ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Relations are not categories excepted for type=network ?
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 province. When you are interested in the nodes routes of 1 network you can only do this via the name of the network. So a spatial query won't help much in that case, although I admit that it might not be interesting to limit the query to a specific network and not to a geographical region. BTW, I wouldn't mind to start using a tagging schema that doesn't use network relations. regards m On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: 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 for all McDonald's restaurants in Netherlands or all pharmacies in a network or bank branches in Belgium and say we move one tag to the upper relation to avoid its repetition. What is done by such relations can be done by a query in the database with one or two arguments (like the operator or network tag) and a bbox (see XAPI, overpass, etc for more info). Repeating the network or operator or brand name is not a problem for many features in OSM. I don't see why we should create an exception for footway routes. As it was writen by Frederik Ramm in 2008 ([1]): Our database is a spatial database; this means that it has intrinsic knowledge about the location of objects. If you want to know about all footways in East Anglia, simply pass in a bounding box of East Anglia and request all footways, and the collection is made for you on-the-fly. Pieren [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Relations/Relations_are_not_Categoriesoldid=179750 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Relations are not categories excepted for type=network ?
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 walking network ren=regional equestrian network (?) both rcn and rwn are already used in the numbering of the nodes (rwn_ref, rcn_ref). I'm not familiar with the equestrian networks Another problem is for routes that form the connection between 2 networks. Right now, they are placed in the 2 network relations. How would you tag the network names for them ? regards m On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 11:07 AM, Marc Gemis marc.ge...@gmail.com wrote: 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 province. When you are interested in the nodes routes of 1 network you can only do this via the name of the network. So a spatial query won't help much in that case, although I admit that it might not be interesting to limit the query to a specific network and not to a geographical region. BTW, I wouldn't mind to start using a tagging schema that doesn't use network relations. regards m On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: 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 for all McDonald's restaurants in Netherlands or all pharmacies in a network or bank branches in Belgium and say we move one tag to the upper relation to avoid its repetition. What is done by such relations can be done by a query in the database with one or two arguments (like the operator or network tag) and a bbox (see XAPI, overpass, etc for more info). Repeating the network or operator or brand name is not a problem for many features in OSM. I don't see why we should create an exception for footway routes. As it was writen by Frederik Ramm in 2008 ([1]): Our database is a spatial database; this means that it has intrinsic knowledge about the location of objects. If you want to know about all footways in East Anglia, simply pass in a bounding box of East Anglia and request all footways, and the collection is made for you on-the-fly. Pieren [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Relations/Relations_are_not_Categoriesoldid=179750 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Relations are not categories excepted for type=network ?
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 network:operator where operator is already used. But tell me if you know an example where the network operator is differente from the hiking route operator belonging to this network... Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Relations are not categories excepted for type=network ?
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, network:rwn:name and network:ren:name No, the tags on the node should be moved to the appropriate route relation where you also set the network_:name. both rcn and rwn are already used in the numbering of the nodes (rwn_ref, rcn_ref). I'm not familiar with the equestrian networks Is this question related to the network relation ? Another problem is for routes that form the connection between 2 networks. Right now, they are placed in the 2 network relations. How would you tag the network names for them ? Create two route relations, one per network. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Relations are not categories excepted for type=network ?
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. However, when it's a group of nodes that have no geo-spatial relationship, then it's better to avoid using relations, since it's unnecessary, and just adds complexity (duplication is regarded as better than complexity). As far as I can see, the rcn node networks are independent, so all the information could be on the node. I think there may be relation hierarchies in public transport as well. Again, it's better to collect independent routes into a network using tags, rather than a relation. Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Relations are not categories excepted for type=network ?
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 propose you write a proposal with all the required changes, and post them to the Belgian, Dutch and German mailing lists and forums. I'm not going to stick out my neck for this. regards m On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: 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, network:rwn:name and network:ren:name No, the tags on the node should be moved to the appropriate route relation where you also set the network_:name. both rcn and rwn are already used in the numbering of the nodes (rwn_ref, rcn_ref). I'm not familiar with the equestrian networks Is this question related to the network relation ? Another problem is for routes that form the connection between 2 networks. Right now, they are placed in the 2 network relations. How would you tag the network names for them ? Create two route relations, one per network. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Relations are not categories excepted for type=network ?
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 one just to avoid a tag network:name. Don't tell me again it's to avoid a repetition of tags, we do this for many features in OSM. It's not for simplicity : the whole structure is more complicate to understand (more relations and different levels). Again, the real reason is to avoid a query in the database. 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 propose you write a proposal with all the required changes, and post them to the Belgian, Dutch and German mailing lists and forums. I think this single list and the wiki, instead of ten local lists and forums, is more appropriate, no ? I don't have preconception about such relation, if someone find a valid argument/example which explains it's not using relations as categories. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Relations are not categories excepted for type=network ?
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 before, I don't care, I would happily use any tagging schema for this. I'll also admit that your approach looks simpler right now. (until I find the first exception that makes things more complex :-) ) I'm just not going to translate your message in Dutch (French is probably not needed) and German and tell the communities, hey guys, you have been tagging this wrong for the past 4 or 5 years So I fear that you overestimate the power of the tagging mailing list. Why would it be enough that a handful of people, from outside the involved communities, in mailing list in a foreign language decide that it's bad tagging, that people will suddenly start tagging in a different way ? Or that they would retag thousands of nodes and hundreds of relations ? I can be wrong, but I don't believe that your messages here will have sufficient impact to redo the whole thing. regards m On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: 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 one just to avoid a tag network:name. Don't tell me again it's to avoid a repetition of tags, we do this for many features in OSM. It's not for simplicity : the whole structure is more complicate to understand (more relations and different levels). Again, the real reason is to avoid a query in the database. 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 propose you write a proposal with all the required changes, and post them to the Belgian, Dutch and German mailing lists and forums. I think this single list and the wiki, instead of ten local lists and forums, is more appropriate, no ? I don't have preconception about such relation, if someone find a valid argument/example which explains it's not using relations as categories. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Relations are not categories excepted for type=network ?
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 relation up to date if it has a reasonable amount of objects = any new node or way of the network has to be included. But e.g. I didn't know about that relation = I wouldn't include a new node or way = would be missing. So I don't see any chance to have all objects within a relation. = another argument against a relation used as category. Best regards, Michael. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Relations are not categories excepted for type=network ?
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 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 relation up to date if it has a reasonable amount of objects = any new node or way of the network has to be included. But e.g. I didn't know about that relation = I wouldn't include a new node or way = would be missing. So I don't see any chance to have all objects within a relation. = another argument against a relation used as category. Best regards, Michael. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Relations are not categories excepted for type=network ?
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/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Relations are not categories excepted for type=network ?
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 know. Just like Marc I've also been doing it this way since that is how it was described on the wiki. At some point I had grouped the network relations in collection relations. And I admit this was to make it possible to download the whole bunch in one go with JOSM. Since the advent of Overpass API this is not needed anymore, so those collection relations were removed. Those collection relations were indeed categories and they served the purpose of something which was actually needed back then. The combination of route and network relations works and it is an elegant solution for this type of numbered node networks. The network relations are not categories as such. Just like you aren't able to change how PT is mapped, because of too 'complex' when rendering the beast, you won't be able to change this. So let it be or remap them all yourself. While you're at it, also make sure all the route relations become continuous once again. This is something I'm doing every once in a while, as route relations break easily. I created scripts in JOSM to help perform this task. I don't feel like rewriting these scripts, just because you want to change how these networks have been mapped since the very beginning. The task of checking and correcting the whole bunch usually takes a few weeks, I'll gladly leave the task for you. I also think that if you still feel like changing this, you'll have to talk to all contributors in Belgium, The Netherlands and Germany in Dutch, German and French (there are some of these networks in Wallonia too now around Marche-en-Famenne, since about 1,5 year). You can't expect everybody to read this mailing list, which is kind of moot anyway, just like the imports list. People decide something here and on the wiki, it gets approved and half decade later it still doesn't get rendered. Polyglot 2014-07-16 12:52 GMT+02:00 Marc Gemis marc.ge...@gmail.com: 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 before, I don't care, I would happily use any tagging schema for this. I'll also admit that your approach looks simpler right now. (until I find the first exception that makes things more complex :-) ) I'm just not going to translate your message in Dutch (French is probably not needed) and German and tell the communities, hey guys, you have been tagging this wrong for the past 4 or 5 years So I fear that you overestimate the power of the tagging mailing list. Why would it be enough that a handful of people, from outside the involved communities, in mailing list in a foreign language decide that it's bad tagging, that people will suddenly start tagging in a different way ? Or that they would retag thousands of nodes and hundreds of relations ? I can be wrong, but I don't believe that your messages here will have sufficient impact to redo the whole thing. regards m On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: 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 one just to avoid a tag network:name. Don't tell me again it's to avoid a repetition of tags, we do this for many features in OSM. It's not for simplicity : the whole structure is more complicate to understand (more relations and different levels). Again, the real reason is to avoid a query in the database. 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 propose you write a proposal with all the required changes, and post them to the Belgian, Dutch and German mailing lists and forums. I think this single list and the wiki, instead of ten local lists and forums, is more appropriate, no ? I don't have preconception about such relation, if someone find a valid argument/example which explains it's not using relations as categories. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Relations are not categories excepted for type=network ?
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, give me an example where the nodes cannot belong to the route relation and need specificaly a network relation. Just like Marc I've also been doing it this way since that is how it was described on the wiki. The wiki is just a proposal. I don't remember it was discussed on any global list (checked in my archives). It was surely not discussed in France and the examples I find are personal initiatives. And I admit this was to make it possible to download the whole bunch in one go with JOSM. I appreciate this honesty and I could even accept such thing in earlier OSM time where we missed the tools we have today (like overpass). The combination of route and network relations works and it is an elegant solution for this type of numbered node networks. The network relations are not categories as such. This is where we differ. The netwok is just an attribut like many others (operator, branch). We don't accept this kind of collections for restaurants, banks, etc. and we have to be consistent and refuse it for routes for the same reasons. Just like you aren't able to change how PT is mapped, because of too 'complex' when rendering the beast, you won't be able to change this. So let it be or remap them all yourself. While you're at it, also make sure all the route relations become continuous once again. This is something I'm doing every once in a while, as route relations break easily. I created scripts in JOSM to help perform this task. I don't feel like rewriting these scripts, just because you want to change how these networks have been mapped since the very beginning. It's not the question to remap everything but move the network name down from the relation to its members. My intent is not to remove all of such relations but see if we can reject this proposal and provide a better solution in the wiki. Then advise my local community to not use them (and remove them in long term). You can't expect everybody to read this mailing list, which is kind of moot anyway, just like the imports list. It's always the same. Once we have a conflict between mappers, you need a meeting point where everyone can express his opinion and put all arguments on the table. What is writen in the wiki can be the result of such discussions. Note that the wiki provides a discussion page and this proposal was already objected since 2009... ([1]) Now, I wanted to see some real examples and followed the ones linked in the wiki: http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/20614 : type=network network=road description=Deutsche Bundesautobahnen operator=Bundesrepublik Deutschland all members are route relations; route=road; tagged with operator=Bundesrepublik Deutschland This could be fixed by adding the tag network_name=Deutsche Bundesautobahnen in the route relations. http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/153968 type=network network=iwn name=Camino de Santiago The first member is a route relation: http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1247178 type=route route=hiking name=Voie de Soulac And, oh surprise, it belongs to 2 network relations. The second one is: http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3071561 type = network network=iwn name=Way of St. James name:es=Camino_de_Santiago http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/157868 type=network network=rcn name=Gooi en Vechtstreek More interesting, it's containing a mix of nodes and relations. Check the first relation: http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/150267 type=route route=bicycle network=rcn Check the first node: http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/45909336 Well, it belongs to the same route relation... My conclusions so far: The relation is not used consistently : sometimes you have a name, sometimes just an operator or description; the values of the network key are inconstant. The relation for all motorways in Germany is only a collection/category. The Camino de Santiago is basically a route master linking smaller route segments together. It's even worse here since the same long route is modelized twice in the database... The bicycle network example shows that the nodes are finally on both types of relations. This could be simplified with a tag like network:name. Shall I continue ? Pieren [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Relations/Proposed/Network ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Relations are not categories excepted for type=network ?
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 Vechtstreek, they insist on adding the nodes to the routes as well, I have been working hard to defend the idea of putting them in the network relations where they have their place. In Belgium and most parts of the Netherlands the nodes are part of the network relations and not of the route relations which connect the nodes. Where they insisted on adding the nodes to the routes as well, I gave up. Of course, this also means I also gave up on checking those routes for continuity in the Netherlands, hence the inconsistency. Jo 2014-07-16 16:10 GMT+02:00 Pieren pier...@gmail.com: 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, give me an example where the nodes cannot belong to the route relation and need specificaly a network relation. Just like Marc I've also been doing it this way since that is how it was described on the wiki. The wiki is just a proposal. I don't remember it was discussed on any global list (checked in my archives). It was surely not discussed in France and the examples I find are personal initiatives. And I admit this was to make it possible to download the whole bunch in one go with JOSM. I appreciate this honesty and I could even accept such thing in earlier OSM time where we missed the tools we have today (like overpass). The combination of route and network relations works and it is an elegant solution for this type of numbered node networks. The network relations are not categories as such. This is where we differ. The netwok is just an attribut like many others (operator, branch). We don't accept this kind of collections for restaurants, banks, etc. and we have to be consistent and refuse it for routes for the same reasons. Just like you aren't able to change how PT is mapped, because of too 'complex' when rendering the beast, you won't be able to change this. So let it be or remap them all yourself. While you're at it, also make sure all the route relations become continuous once again. This is something I'm doing every once in a while, as route relations break easily. I created scripts in JOSM to help perform this task. I don't feel like rewriting these scripts, just because you want to change how these networks have been mapped since the very beginning. It's not the question to remap everything but move the network name down from the relation to its members. My intent is not to remove all of such relations but see if we can reject this proposal and provide a better solution in the wiki. Then advise my local community to not use them (and remove them in long term). You can't expect everybody to read this mailing list, which is kind of moot anyway, just like the imports list. It's always the same. Once we have a conflict between mappers, you need a meeting point where everyone can express his opinion and put all arguments on the table. What is writen in the wiki can be the result of such discussions. Note that the wiki provides a discussion page and this proposal was already objected since 2009... ([1]) Now, I wanted to see some real examples and followed the ones linked in the wiki: http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/20614 : type=network network=road description=Deutsche Bundesautobahnen operator=Bundesrepublik Deutschland all members are route relations; route=road; tagged with operator=Bundesrepublik Deutschland This could be fixed by adding the tag network_name=Deutsche Bundesautobahnen in the route relations. http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/153968 type=network network=iwn name=Camino de Santiago The first member is a route relation: http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1247178 type=route route=hiking name=Voie de Soulac And, oh surprise, it belongs to 2 network relations. The second one is: http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3071561 type = network network=iwn name=Way of St. James name:es=Camino_de_Santiago http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/157868 type=network network=rcn name=Gooi en Vechtstreek More interesting, it's containing a mix of nodes and relations. Check the first relation: http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/150267 type=route route=bicycle network=rcn Check the first node: http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/45909336 Well, it belongs to the same route relation... My conclusions so far: The relation is not used consistently : sometimes you have a name, sometimes just an operator or
Re: [Tagging] Relations are not categories excepted for type=network ?
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't be accomplished in a far more manageable way in what would be each member relation. And I'm only talking road networks, and not the tens of thousands of potentially mappable transit, bicycle, hiking networks. It's like hydroponic tomatoes: a great way to seriously complicate growing without much payoff except in very few edge scenarios. On Jul 15, 2014 10:59 AM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: 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 Quotes: A network groups together routes that share common characteristics, e.g. a common operator, a common classification scheme (e.g. E-road network: E 1, ..., E 999), ... Use cases Person A sees a bus route with number 217 and wonders how many other bus routes exist in that city. Renderer M wants to render all German motorways using white font on blue sign (official layout), and all E-roads with white font on green sign. This can be implemented by adding rules for 20614 (view, XML, Potlatch2, iD, JOSM, history, analyze, manage, gpx) and 20645 (view, XML, Potlatch2, iD, JOSM, history, analyze, manage, gpx). Renderer M wants to render all cycle routes that belong to the D-Netz. However, there are a lot of other national cycle routes as well. Plus some attached relations examples very explicite. As raised in the discussion page, is that not exactly breaking the relations are not categories ([1]) principle ? Can we delete such relations when we meet them ? Pieren [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Relations_are_not_Categories ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Relations are not categories excepted for type=network ?
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 per state, occasionally one network per city, and at least 3 for national in the US alone, bringing nothing to the table that can't be accomplished in a far more manageable way in what would be each member relation. And I'm only talking road networks, and not the tens of thousands of potentially mappable transit, bicycle, hiking networks. It's like hydroponic tomatoes: a great way to seriously complicate growing without much payoff except in very few edge scenarios. On Jul 15, 2014 10:59 AM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: 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 Quotes: A network groups together routes that share common characteristics, e.g. a common operator, a common classification scheme (e.g. E-road network: E 1, ..., E 999), ... Use cases Person A sees a bus route with number 217 and wonders how many other bus routes exist in that city. Renderer M wants to render all German motorways using white font on blue sign (official layout), and all E-roads with white font on green sign. This can be implemented by adding rules for 20614 (view, XML, Potlatch2, iD, JOSM, history, analyze, manage, gpx) and 20645 (view, XML, Potlatch2, iD, JOSM, history, analyze, manage, gpx). Renderer M wants to render all cycle routes that belong to the D-Netz. However, there are a lot of other national cycle routes as well. Plus some attached relations examples very explicite. As raised in the discussion page, is that not exactly breaking the relations are not categories ([1]) principle ? Can we delete such relations when we meet them ? Pieren [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Relations_are_not_Categories ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Relations are not categories excepted for type=network ?
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 this case, the routes aren't defined, the nodes are? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Relations are not categories excepted for type=network ?
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, 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 this case, the routes aren't defined, the nodes are? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Relations are not categories excepted for type=network ?
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 the latter as a collection relation, if all data would be moved down to the route relations and/or the nodes. (or the nodes moved multiple route relations.) regards m 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. Isn't that documented in the wiki as a route relation, even though in this case, the routes aren't defined, the nodes are? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Relations are not categories excepted for type=network ?
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. Numbered node cycle networks are not very different from a bus network in a town. Instead of numbered and signed junction nodes, you have numbered (or named) and signed stop positions. The only difference is that a bus line is not choosing its destination at each junction. In your case, you don't have a predefined list of (master) routes but only a list of path segments. But again, like all bus routes in a town or all motorways in a country, you should be able to retrieve the whole list of smaller routes and junctions with an appropriate set of tags on the nodes and route relations. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Relations are not categories excepted for type=network ?
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 it's just not worth the effort. There are so many things missing or even wrong in the OSM-data, that are much more important to fix than swapping one way of mapping things into another method. regards m ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Relations are not categories excepted for type=network ?
The cyclenode networks we are talking about are specific, published networks with route signage and node signs and/or information panels. They are not a loose connection of nodes which mappers have decided to gather together in OSM for convenience. You will find them in Belgium (where they were invented), the Netherlands and some parts of Germany. (And possible elsewhere if people have decided to use the same system.) They are observable (route signs, node signage, information panels and maps) and exist verifiably in the real world. There are separate route relations for all the roads and paths signed between two nodes and these are included in network relations which contain those route relations as well as the nodes. It would not be convenient (or probably possible) to include all the roads and nodes which make up a complete network in a single relation, so that is why we have route relations. And it is convenient for all of us who try to maintain them in OSM to have all the separate route relations collected in network relations. The same is true for other node networks mentioned (walking/hiking routes, equestrian, etc.) To answer Pieren’s original question: 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=network ? 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't be accomplished in a far more manageable way in what would be each member relation. And I'm only talking road networks, and not the tens of thousands of potentially mappable transit, bicycle, hiking networks. It's like hydroponic tomatoes: a great way to seriously complicate growing without much payoff except in very few edge scenarios. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Relations are not categories excepted for type=network ?
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. It's simply a matter of moving the 'complexity' from one place to another. Oh well, we'll have to discuss this on the Belgian and Dutch mailing lists/forums. Jo 2014-07-16 18:05 GMT+02:00 Marc Gemis marc.ge...@gmail.com: 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 it's just not worth the effort. There are so many things missing or even wrong in the OSM-data, that are much more important to fix than swapping one way of mapping things into another method. regards m ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
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, I'm not asking to delete them *right now*. I'm checking if the proposal is fair and is not breaking the relations are not categories principle. If no, I could modify the wiki and recommend some solutions (like using query the appropriate tags on the collection itself instead of creating a relation for that). Existing relations could be modified along the way when people are contribution around them. @Frank I agree that the wiki should formalize the practice but not all practices in OSM have to be followed. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Relations are not categories excepted for type=network ?
These are practices which a lot of people have been following for a long time. I do not see a real problem which you are trying to solve here. Leave it alone, please. -Oorspronkelijk bericht- From: Pieren Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 6:46 PM To: Tag discussion, strategy and related 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, I'm not asking to delete them *right now*. I'm checking if the proposal is fair and is not breaking the relations are not categories principle. If no, I could modify the wiki and recommend some solutions (like using query the appropriate tags on the collection itself instead of creating a relation for that). Existing relations could be modified along the way when people are contribution around them. @Frank I agree that the wiki should formalize the practice but not all practices in OSM have to be followed. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
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 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, is bad. Whenever the route has to change, one has to change it twice, or one gets inconsistencies. There is also something as every object is represented only once in OSM. Putting the network name solely on the nodes might solve this. Until now, a node only belongs to one walking network. However it could belong to a cycling and walking network, hence, my previous proposal to include the network type in the network:name tag. So all problems for retagging could be solved, one could write a program to do this. I leave it to others to decide how urgent this retagging is. regards m p.s. as someone asked about the number of objects, here are some numbers: Detail TotalThe Netherlands BelgiumExplanation HikingBicycle HikingBicycle Length (km)59.871 6.17633.810 4.03315.850 Total length in kilometers. Networks 19362 http://osma.vmarc.be/en/networks/nl/rwn 64 http://osma.vmarc.be/en/networks/nl/rcn 27 http://osma.vmarc.be/en/networks/be/rwn 40 http://osma.vmarc.be/en/networks/be/rcn Number of networks. Nodes23.320 5.6279.389 3.7374.567 Number of network nodes.Routes 29.7146.994 12.0085.263 5.449Number of routes.this is taken from http://osma.vmarc.be/ On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: 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 breaking the relations are not categories principle. If no, I could modify the wiki and recommend some solutions (like using query the appropriate tags on the collection itself instead of creating a relation for that). Existing relations could be modified along the way when people are contribution around them. @Frank I agree that the wiki should formalize the practice but not all practices in OSM have to be followed. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Relations are not categories excepted for type=network ?
O, did you ever walked along a walking network ? :-) The one in my neighbourhood (Rivierenland) changes almost yearly: farmers that decide that a route can no longer pass over their land, new paths are opened, and sometimes, nodes are just moved a few meters for whatever reason. The network Kempense Netevallei has many nodes with only 2 routes. It's obvious that new routes will be added as soon as the paths are opened to the public. Perhaps, after the governments bought the ground form the current landowners. I've heard that several changes where planned for the cycling networks in Flanders. Probably because new cycle path where constructed or due to new road layouts. So both the routes and the collection of route (== the network) changes. I've said several times on the Belgian mailing list that one should revisit all networks again every year, just to keep them up to date. BTW, the maps of Rivierenland that could be bought from the tourist office used the old nodes for several years. Some websites that use the official information from the Flemish tourist office had the same problem. Only OSM was up-to-date :-) BTW, I'm not asking for retagging. I just pointed out that it could be done. regards m On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 9:54 PM, Frank Little frank...@xs4all.nl wrote: Could you please explain why you believe route relations are likely to change, necessitating an update to the network relations? Once a cycle node network has been established, there are few changes (few new routes). Older networks may be updated with a few new nodes and new relations. But (at least in this area) it does not happen very often. The same would be true for walking node networks. But any changes to the specific roads and paths in a route relation do not affect the validity of a route relation which is entered in a (cycle node) network relation. That is one of the advantages of having both route relations and cyclenode network relations which contain them. Duplicating a connecting route relation so that it can bear the name of two network relations would indeed be nonsense. There is only one set of route signs between the two networks (specifically, between a node in each of the respective networks), so we tag the connection once and enter it in OSM once. The route does however belong in both networks, so it naturally is placed in both network relations. Retagging is IMO pointless. It adds nothing and is no better than what we already have. What are the arguments for making substantial changes to all the node network relations 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 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 excepted for type=network ? 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, is bad. Whenever the route has to change, one has to change it twice, or one gets inconsistencies. There is also something as every object is represented only once in OSM. Putting the network name solely on the nodes might solve this. Until now, a node only belongs to one walking network. However it could belong to a cycling and walking network, hence, my previous proposal to include the network type in the network:name tag. So all problems for retagging could be solved, one could write a program to do this. I leave it to others to decide how urgent this retagging is. regards m ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Relations are not categories excepted for type=network ?
Nodes currently are placed (where relevant) in both cycling and walking networks. If one did not include nodes in route relations (I do that and prefer it; Jo, as he said earlier, does not), or in the network relation, or in both (slight redundancy, but quite useful IMO) then the cycling or hiking network name would have to be on the node. Again, I fail to see what the advantage would be for such a change. ALL tagging issues can be resolved by adopting a different set of tagging principles and therefore (within reason) can be changed using programming, but why would you want 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 network. However it could belong to a cycling and walking network, hence, my previous proposal to include the network type in the network:name tag. So all problems for retagging could be solved, one could write a program to do this. I leave it to others to decide how urgent this retagging is. regards m ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Relations are not categories excepted for type=network ?
We don’t disagree that routes can change. But the point is that a route relation connecting two different networks (especially true, I believe, for the cycle node networks) is unlikely to change unless the network nodes change (and that does not happen much). What does happen is that the actual route (which is in the route relation defining the roads and paths between the two nodes) may change for reasons you mention. My point is simply that the number of connection routes between networks is relatively small and of those the number likely to change is very small indeed. (Note that changes to the actual roads used is irrelevant; those changes are found in the route relation, which is not what we are talking about here. This is about the “super-relation” for all the routes in a network.) (I realise you grasp this, Marc. but not everyone reading this is familiar with cycle 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 walked along a walking network ? :-) The one in my neighbourhood (Rivierenland) changes almost yearly: farmers that decide that a route can no longer pass over their land, new paths are opened, and sometimes, nodes are just moved a few meters for whatever reason. The network Kempense Netevallei has many nodes with only 2 routes. It's obvious that new routes will be added as soon as the paths are opened to the public. Perhaps, after the governments bought the ground form the current landowners. I've heard that several changes where planned for the cycling networks in Flanders. Probably because new cycle path where constructed or due to new road layouts. So both the routes and the collection of route (== the network) changes. I've said several times on the Belgian mailing list that one should revisit all networks again every year, just to keep them up to date. BTW, the maps of Rivierenland that could be bought from the tourist office used the old nodes for several years. Some websites that use the official information from the Flemish tourist office had the same problem. Only OSM was up-to-date :-) BTW, I'm not asking for retagging. I just pointed out that it could be done. regards___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Relations are not categories excepted for type=network ?
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 transportation related Cheers, Michael. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Relations are not categories excepted for type=network ?
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 pier...@gmail.com wrote: 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 Quotes: A network groups together routes that share common characteristics, e.g. a common operator, a common classification scheme (e.g. E-road network: E 1, ..., E 999), ... Use cases Person A sees a bus route with number 217 and wonders how many other bus routes exist in that city. Renderer M wants to render all German motorways using white font on blue sign (official layout), and all E-roads with white font on green sign. This can be implemented by adding rules for 20614 (view, XML, Potlatch2, iD, JOSM, history, analyze, manage, gpx) and 20645 (view, XML, Potlatch2, iD, JOSM, history, analyze, manage, gpx). Renderer M wants to render all cycle routes that belong to the D-Netz. However, there are a lot of other national cycle routes as well. Plus some attached relations examples very explicite. As raised in the discussion page, is that not exactly breaking the relations are not categories ([1]) principle ? Can we delete such relations when we meet them ? Pieren [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Relations_are_not_Categories ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
