Sorry for the delay, I meant to post this earlier. My bad!
We have discussed the arguments again in the Dutch OSM forum. The Belgium
OSM forum did not respond, except for vmarc who took active part in the
Dutch forum discussion. The German OSM forum had some positive response but
no specific
I see that network:type=node_network has been added to the wiki:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:network%3Drwn=next=1897551
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:route%3Dbicycle=next=1866174
Was there consensus on this in the end? I didn't follow the whole
We have considered node_network=yes. But other network configurations are
already present. We now map two network setups, but the default one
(chained ways) is by no means uniform, and we have already seen colour
choice networks.
So all emerging network configurations would need a separate key.
On 5/9/19 2:42 am, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Peter Elderson wrote:
The network values identify transport mode and scope of routes, and
these "dimensions" also apply to node networks. We do not want to
add another dimension (configuration type) to the network=*
values of routes.
Instead, we are
Richard Fairhurst :
> Peter Elderson wrote:
> > The network values identify transport mode and scope of routes, and
> > these "dimensions" also apply to node networks. We do not want to
> > add another dimension (configuration type) to the network=*
> > values of routes.
> >
> > Instead, we are
Peter Elderson wrote:
> The network values identify transport mode and scope of routes, and
> these "dimensions" also apply to node networks. We do not want to
> add another dimension (configuration type) to the network=*
> values of routes.
>
> Instead, we are thnking about just adding a tag
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.
Osm forums
https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=67218 (german forum)
https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=67219 (Belgian forum)
https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=66243 (Dutch forum)
The main discussion of alternatives was on the Dutch forum. Here I
On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 16:52:47 +0200, Peter Elderson wrote:
> We are currently discussing in the three communities how to coreect this
> exception and return rcn and rwn to their intended use.
Where does this discussion you're talking about take place?
