Re: [Tagging] Fwd: Walking & Cycling Node Network tagging: undoing the hijacking of rcn and rwn
I think it's the best AND the easiest solution. Network configuration type is currently not tagged. Nederland, Belgium and Germany decided to use rcn exclusively for the cycle node networks. Later they copied that to rwn for the emerging walking node networks. We now want to correct that, but we also want a clear difference between the network condfigurations. Then renderers and other data users can make the distinction. We have considered using another network=* value. But the transport mode is still in there, as is the geographical scope. So you would need extra values for all combinations of mode, scope and config. If yet another network config type emerges, you will need more network values. Every data user has to decode the values to know what's going on. While what we want is just to indicate that this particular rcn route is part of a node network. This is true for all transport modes (now and future) and for all geographical scopes, now and future. So we came to the solution that it is by far the most effective and at the same time the easiest solution to just add the information that a route is part of a node network in a separate tag. The bonus is that other network systems can be accommodated as well. E.g. some regions and some nature parks in Nederland have a "colour choice network", where you can follow a (self-planned) sequence of signposted coloured routes. The extra bonus of this solution is that currently tagged node network routes need no retagging, just addition of the information that they are part of a node network. This allows renderers and other data users to refine the display or handling of the existing rXn routes. We thought of network_type as a key. This is not a new key, it has some non-conflicting usage. We could introduce a new key as a namespaced variant: network:type=*. If this is still confusing: feel free to suggest better names and values to indicate that a route belongs to a network system of the node variety. Fr gr Peter Elderson Op wo 4 sep. 2019 om 18:33 schreef s8evq : > Why don't you continue to use network=* ? Invent a new value for network= > instead of introducing a new, but confusing tag called "network_type". > > I understand that using network_type would be easier. You just add the tag > to the already tagged node networks that are currently using network=rwn. > > But is introducing a new tag "network_type=" really the best solution? Or > is it the easiest solution? > > On Wed, 4 Sep 2019 16:44:58 +0200, Peter Elderson > wrote: > > > > > > > Mvg Peter Elderson > > > > > Op 4 sep. 2019 om 16:30 heeft Simon Poole het > volgende geschreven: > > > > > > > > >> Am 04.09.2019 um 15:59 schrieb Peter Elderson: > > >> Thanks for the illustrations! > > >> > > >> network=* gives geographical scope (local, regional, national, > > >> international) and transport mode (bicycle, foot, canoe, horse, mtb, > > >> ski, skate, ) > > > You know what I'm going to point out. > > > > > > The redundant coding of transportation kind in the the geographical > > > scope was a mistake, but is a done deed for cycling and hiking. BUT > > > there is no need to propagate repeating the mistake for every other > > > transportation mode, lets just stick with local, regional, national and > > > international these (historically I suspect that the values came from > > > direct tagging on ways, lcn=yes and similar). > > > > I agree with your point. Had I been around, I probably would have voted > not to mix scope and mode in one tag. At the same time, the proposed tag > for network configuration type does not change this, nor does it propagate > it. So I would like to keep this a separate issue, and just talk about how > to separate regular routes from node networks. > > > > > ___ > > > 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 > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Fwd: Walking & Cycling Node Network tagging: undoing the hijacking of rcn and rwn
Why don't you continue to use network=* ? Invent a new value for network= instead of introducing a new, but confusing tag called "network_type". I understand that using network_type would be easier. You just add the tag to the already tagged node networks that are currently using network=rwn. But is introducing a new tag "network_type=" really the best solution? Or is it the easiest solution? On Wed, 4 Sep 2019 16:44:58 +0200, Peter Elderson wrote: > > > Mvg Peter Elderson > > > Op 4 sep. 2019 om 16:30 heeft Simon Poole het volgende > > geschreven: > > > > > >> Am 04.09.2019 um 15:59 schrieb Peter Elderson: > >> Thanks for the illustrations! > >> > >> network=* gives geographical scope (local, regional, national, > >> international) and transport mode (bicycle, foot, canoe, horse, mtb, > >> ski, skate, ) > > You know what I'm going to point out. > > > > The redundant coding of transportation kind in the the geographical > > scope was a mistake, but is a done deed for cycling and hiking. BUT > > there is no need to propagate repeating the mistake for every other > > transportation mode, lets just stick with local, regional, national and > > international these (historically I suspect that the values came from > > direct tagging on ways, lcn=yes and similar). > > I agree with your point. Had I been around, I probably would have voted not > to mix scope and mode in one tag. At the same time, the proposed tag for > network configuration type does not change this, nor does it propagate it. So > I would like to keep this a separate issue, and just talk about how to > separate regular routes from node networks. > > > ___ > > 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] Fwd: Walking & Cycling Node Network tagging: undoing the hijacking of rcn and rwn
Mvg Peter Elderson > Op 4 sep. 2019 om 16:30 heeft Simon Poole het volgende > geschreven: > > >> Am 04.09.2019 um 15:59 schrieb Peter Elderson: >> Thanks for the illustrations! >> >> network=* gives geographical scope (local, regional, national, >> international) and transport mode (bicycle, foot, canoe, horse, mtb, >> ski, skate, ) > You know what I'm going to point out. > > The redundant coding of transportation kind in the the geographical > scope was a mistake, but is a done deed for cycling and hiking. BUT > there is no need to propagate repeating the mistake for every other > transportation mode, lets just stick with local, regional, national and > international these (historically I suspect that the values came from > direct tagging on ways, lcn=yes and similar). I agree with your point. Had I been around, I probably would have voted not to mix scope and mode in one tag. At the same time, the proposed tag for network configuration type does not change this, nor does it propagate it. So I would like to keep this a separate issue, and just talk about how to separate regular routes from node networks. > ___ > 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] Fwd: Walking & Cycling Node Network tagging: undoing the hijacking of rcn and rwn
Am 04.09.2019 um 15:59 schrieb Peter Elderson: > Thanks for the illustrations! > > network=* gives geographical scope (local, regional, national, > international) and transport mode (bicycle, foot, canoe, horse, mtb, > ski, skate, ) You know what I'm going to point out. The redundant coding of transportation kind in the the geographical scope was a mistake, but is a done deed for cycling and hiking. BUT there is no need to propagate repeating the mistake for every other transportation mode, lets just stick with local, regional, national and international these (historically I suspect that the values came from direct tagging on ways, lcn=yes and similar). signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Fwd: Walking & Cycling Node Network tagging: undoing the hijacking of rcn and rwn
Thanks for the illustrations! network=* gives geographical scope (local, regional, national, international) and transport mode (bicycle, foot, canoe, horse, mtb, ski, skate, ) network_type gives network configuration type (chain of ways; node_network=network of nodes) The network configuration type is applicable to all geographical scopes and all transport modes. By adding this as a separate tag the network=rXn tag is free again for regional routes. This applies in Nederland, Belgium and Germany. In other countries the tag network_type creates the option to register node networks in OSM if they are implemented, without reserving a mode/scope network=XXn tag which may be already in use for regular routes (conform the wiki's about routes). Please feel free to offer other solutions! Fr gr Peter Elderson Op wo 4 sep. 2019 om 14:53 schreef s8evq : > On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 16:56:49 +0200, Peter Elderson > wrote: > > Tagging of regular cycle route relations is route=lcn for local routes, > rcn > > for regional routes, ncn for national routes, icn for international > routes. > > > You probably mean network=lcn instead of route=lcn > > > > I hope this clears things up? In terms of proposal, we propose one extra > > value "node_network" for the key "network_type". > > Nothing is changed, nothing is removed. So we think zero impact on the > > current base. It's up to renderers and other data users to make use of > the > > extra tag. > > So hiking node network would still be tagged with network=rwn, but you > would just add network_type=node_network. > > If yes, then I find this a bad proposal. What is the difference between > network=* and network_type=* > > Do not choose network_type because it's the most easy solution!!! > ___ > 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] Fwd: Walking & Cycling Node Network tagging: undoing the hijacking of rcn and rwn
On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 16:56:49 +0200, Peter Elderson wrote: > Tagging of regular cycle route relations is route=lcn for local routes, rcn > for regional routes, ncn for national routes, icn for international routes. You probably mean network=lcn instead of route=lcn > I hope this clears things up? In terms of proposal, we propose one extra > value "node_network" for the key "network_type". > Nothing is changed, nothing is removed. So we think zero impact on the > current base. It's up to renderers and other data users to make use of the > extra tag. So hiking node network would still be tagged with network=rwn, but you would just add network_type=node_network. If yes, then I find this a bad proposal. What is the difference between network=* and network_type=* Do not choose network_type because it's the most easy solution!!! ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Fwd: Walking & Cycling Node Network tagging: undoing the hijacking of rcn and rwn
On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 16:56:49 +0200, Peter Elderson wrote: > Op zo 1 sep. 2019 om 12:35 schreef Andy Townsend : > > > On 29/08/2019 15:52, Peter Elderson wrote: > > > LS > > > With the arrival of cycling node networks, the Dutch, German and > > > Belgian mappers decided to claim (hijack) the network value rcn for > > > those node networks. This exception was copied with the claim of > > > network=rwn for the walking node networks. > > > > Would it be possible to try and describe in a bit more detail what has > > happened, without using judgmental terms such as "hijack"? I'd start > > with a link helping people understand what a "cycling node network" is. > > > > Sure. A node network consists of numbered nodes (signs) with short routes > between pairs of adjacent nodes. Eg nodes 10, 35 and 22 with routes 20-35, > 10-22 and 22-35, and then each of these nodes has other connections to > other nodes. Some pictures might make it more clear for somebody who has never heard of this system: This is an example of a node: (in this case node 55) https://pretwerk.nl/wp-content/uploads/knopen-lopen.jpg From that point, individual waymarks indicate the route to one of the connecting nodes (54, 91 and 56 in this case). So, along the road between two nodes, you will then find this kind of signs: https://www.anwb.nl/binaries/content/gallery/anwb/portal/wandelen/wandelroutes/soorten-routes/knooppuntroutes/wandelknooppunt_kvp.jpg ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
