Re: [Tagging] Walking & Cycling Node Network tagging: undoing the hijacking of rcn and rwn
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 details. They have discussed the same problems earlier. The only new argument from this tagging list was that the key network_type or network:type is not very clear; it does not show what the difference is with the key network. I thought that was a valid point, I thought of two alternatives but mappers thought those were wrongfooting new mappers and that's even worse than confusing them. I am sorry to say that some mappers already had started to add the new tag to cycle node networks even before we reached consensus. The Dutch consensus (with a touch of expert Belgian input and no objection from Germany) is: *We add the tag network:type=node_network to all the junction nodes, to all the node2node route relations, and the node network relation of the node network.* This applies to all recreational node networks: all transport modes, and all geographical scopes. Note that the key is not new. There already was some usage, mainly in Spain, thought it wasn't documented. We had a quick look, it doesn't conflict with our use. When done, rXn in itself is no longer reserved for node networks. Node networks can be separated easily and completely from linear routes. This means tagging regular regional routes (linear routes) will once again be possible in Nederland, Belgium and Germany. We actually have quite a few of those, the are now tagged as national routes even when they are entirely within a particular region. The exception has been undone. I will be happy to answer any questions arising from this. Fr gr Peter Elderson Op di 10 sep. 2019 om 19:49 schreef s8evq : > 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 > discussion. > > > On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 16:52:47 +0200, 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. > > > > We are currently discussing in the three communities how to coreect this > > exception and return rcn and rwn to their intended use. To do that, we > need > > another way to identify (members of) a route network as (members of) a > node > > network. > > > > 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 to identify segment > routes > > as parts of a node network. The nodes themselves do not need this, since > > they ARE nodes and have a xxn_ref tag. > > > > In short, we are thinking to simply add the tag network_type=node_network > > (or network:type=node_network) to the node2node network routes. Nothing > > else has to change, which also means that renderers and data users who > > don't change anything, will not notice anything! But if they want they > can > > make use of the separation and handle node networks different than > non-node > > networks. > > > > Notice that no new key or value is proposed here. If new network config > > types arise, a new value for network_type can accommodate that.The method > > is applicable for all transport modes and geographical scopes. > > > > Thoughts, anyone? What did we forget? Shoot! > > > > Fr gr Peter Elderson > > ___ > > 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] Walking & Cycling Node Network tagging: undoing the hijacking of rcn and rwn
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 discussion. On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 16:52:47 +0200, 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. > > We are currently discussing in the three communities how to coreect this > exception and return rcn and rwn to their intended use. To do that, we need > another way to identify (members of) a route network as (members of) a node > network. > > 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 to identify segment routes > as parts of a node network. The nodes themselves do not need this, since > they ARE nodes and have a xxn_ref tag. > > In short, we are thinking to simply add the tag network_type=node_network > (or network:type=node_network) to the node2node network routes. Nothing > else has to change, which also means that renderers and data users who > don't change anything, will not notice anything! But if they want they can > make use of the separation and handle node networks different than non-node > networks. > > Notice that no new key or value is proposed here. If new network config > types arise, a new value for network_type can accommodate that.The method > is applicable for all transport modes and geographical scopes. > > Thoughts, anyone? What did we forget? Shoot! > > Fr gr Peter Elderson > ___ > 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] Walking & Cycling Node Network tagging: undoing the hijacking of rcn and rwn
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. So it's more generic and future proof to use one key with values for different network setups. For now we only want to distinguish node_network from the rest, to free up rXn in Nederland, Belgium and Germany for the intended use. So we propose one value, but we want to facilitate the option for more network setups. We've used network_type because it's an existing key. Very very low usage, though. (network:type is used in one smaller network in Nederland, for a pilot, so that is not regular usage. To be removed if another solution is chosen. Still, network:type usage is higher than network_type) Maybe the key should be network_setup=* or network_configuration=* ? Or the namespaced variants, network:setup=* or network:config=* ? For renderers and other data users the string does not matter very much as long as it's uniquely defined. They need to know for a particular route what setup it's part of, preferably by an attribute of the route itself. A renderer then can decide how to render different network configurations. A node network planner needs to find the node network routes connected to a particular node. The safest way to know which routes to use and which not to use, is by looking at an attribute of the routes. A node network router also needs to distinguish exactly which ways to use, so has the same need. Fr gr Peter Elderson Op do 5 sep. 2019 om 07:00 schreef Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: > > 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 thnking about just adding a tag to identify segment > routes as parts of a node network. The nodes themselves do not need > this, since they ARE nodes and have a xxn_ref tag. > > In short, we are thinking to simply add the tag network_type= > node_network (or network:type=node_network) to the node2node > network routes. > > I have a strong interest in this proposal. :) [1] > > If I understand you rightly, a route > likehttps://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1844941 would get an extra > network_type=node_network tag. Nothing else would change. (Correct me if I'm > wrong.) > > You say "we don't want to add another dimension" but you are effectively > doing that; you're just doing it by adding a new tag rather than adding a > value. That's not _necessarily_ a problem but it would be better done in an > extensible way that might be useful for other tagging scenarios, rather than > special-casing this one scenario. > > We currently have the "network=ncn|rcn|lcn" tag which broadly identifies the > _importance_ of the route. > > What we do not have is a tag to identify the _character_ and _purpose_ of > the route. All bicycle routes (except MTB) get lumped together as a generic > route=bicycle. This is increasingly a problem as routes are devised and > signposted for performance cycling, bikepacking, and so on. For example, > there are two new performance cycling routes in Wales which I'd like to map > (https://www.visitsnowdonia.info/ffordd-brailsford-way), but which would be > misleading if tagged in the same way as other NCN/RCN/LCN routes in Britain. > > You're proposing a tag called "network_type", but it's a tag for the route, > and what you're using it to describe is the character and purpose of the > route. (The network is already mapped in the network super-relation.) > > So I'd suggest that instead of network_type=, you add route_type= . > > > 'Type' does not add information. If the key is only to have one value .. why > not use the proposed value as the key? > > node_network=yes/no ? > > > ___ > 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] Walking & Cycling Node Network tagging: undoing the hijacking of rcn and rwn
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 thnking about just adding a tag to identify segment routes as parts of a node network. The nodes themselves do not need this, since they ARE nodes and have a xxn_ref tag. In short, we are thinking to simply add the tag network_type= node_network (or network:type=node_network) to the node2node network routes. I have a strong interest in this proposal. :) [1] If I understand you rightly, a route like https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1844941 would get an extra network_type=node_network tag. Nothing else would change. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) You say "we don't want to add another dimension" but you are effectively doing that; you're just doing it by adding a new tag rather than adding a value. That's not _necessarily_ a problem but it would be better done in an extensible way that might be useful for other tagging scenarios, rather than special-casing this one scenario. We currently have the "network=ncn|rcn|lcn" tag which broadly identifies the _importance_ of the route. What we do not have is a tag to identify the _character_ and _purpose_ of the route. All bicycle routes (except MTB) get lumped together as a generic route=bicycle. This is increasingly a problem as routes are devised and signposted for performance cycling, bikepacking, and so on. For example, there are two new performance cycling routes in Wales which I'd like to map (https://www.visitsnowdonia.info/ffordd-brailsford-way), but which would be misleading if tagged in the same way as other NCN/RCN/LCN routes in Britain. You're proposing a tag called "network_type", but it's a tag for the route, and what you're using it to describe is the character and purpose of the route. (The network is already mapped in the network super-relation.) So I'd suggest that instead of network_type=, you add route_type= . 'Type' does not add information. If the key is only to have one value .. why not use the proposed value as the key? node_network=yes/no ? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Walking & Cycling Node Network tagging: undoing the hijacking of rcn and rwn
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 thnking about just adding a tag to identify segment > > routes as parts of a node network. The nodes themselves do not need > > this, since they ARE nodes and have a xxn_ref tag. > > > > In short, we are thinking to simply add the tag network_type= > > node_network (or network:type=node_network) to the node2node > > network routes. > > I have a strong interest in this proposal. :) [1] > > If I understand you rightly, a route like > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1844941 would get an extra > network_type=node_network tag. Nothing else would change. (Correct me if > I'm > wrong.) > You are correct. > You say "we don't want to add another dimension" but you are effectively > doing that; you're just doing it by adding a new tag rather than adding a > value. That's not _necessarily_ a problem but it would be better done in an > extensible way that might be useful for other tagging scenarios, rather > than > special-casing this one scenario. > We do want to add a new aspect: network configuration. We just do not want to add this new aspect into the network tag, because it already has two aspects in it: transport mode and geographical scope. Therefore we decided to just add the new information independent of the other two. This simply allows us (Nederland, Belgium and Germany) to return to the use of rXn as it was intended. We then no longer need the exception that rXn is a node network in these countries only, and a regular regional route (chain of ways) in the rest of the world. > We currently have the "network=ncn|rcn|lcn" tag which broadly identifies > the > _importance_ of the route. > More specific, it gives the transport mode and the geographical scope, including icn for international cycling routes. Same for hiking, and usage for other transport modes (horseriding, canoe, skating) is emerging, and so are regular (chain of ways) routes and node networks including special node network planners. > What we do not have is a tag to identify the _character_ and _purpose_ of > the route. All bicycle routes (except MTB) get lumped together as a generic > route=bicycle. This is increasingly a problem as routes are devised and > signposted for performance cycling, bikepacking, and so on. For example, > there are two new performance cycling routes in Wales which I'd like to map > (https://www.visitsnowdonia.info/ffordd-brailsford-way), but which would > be > misleading if tagged in the same way as other NCN/RCN/LCN routes in > Britain. > > You're proposing a tag called "network_type", but it's a tag for the route, > and what you're using it to describe is the character and purpose of the > route. (The network is already mapped in the network super-relation.) > That is not the idea. Maybe I wasn't clear. The idea is to add the network setup or configuration in a clear and unmistakeable way. You bring up an interesting point: the superrelation. The superrelations are containers of a mix of route relations and nodes but they don't give how these elements are connected. This is the case for both regular routes (think long distance, international, variants) and node network superrelations. So data users using routes would have to determine membership of a superrelation, then analyse the superrelation to find out whether a route is part of a node network, or part of another type of superrelation. At this time, local walking node networks are merging with provincial walking node networks and regional walking node networks into one big national walking node network with connections and branches to Belgian and German walking node networks. The orginal relatively small local node networks already were very difficult to maintain and to use, but on the cureent larger scale the are unmanageabe and unusable. Adding the information as a tag to the individual network routes solves this problem as well. > So I'd suggest that instead of network_type=, you add route_type= . > > This would achieve the same purpose; be semantically more appropriate; and > be extensible to other routes where "route=bicycle" alone does not > adequately capture the character and purpose of the route. > > I disagree. The information is that the route is part of a particular network setup. This does not alter the route itself. It's not about the character of the route, it's about the configuration of the network it's a part of. > Richard > cycle.travel > > > [1] I believe cycle.travel is the only OSM-based router that includes > nodes > in its turn-by-turn instructions, e.g. > https://cycle.travel/map?from=51.0623,2.8582=51.0913,2.8531 . > cycle.travel also has a few localised rules for rendering in the > Netherlands > and Belgium to cope
Re: [Tagging] Walking & Cycling Node Network tagging: undoing the hijacking of rcn and rwn
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 to identify segment > routes as parts of a node network. The nodes themselves do not need > this, since they ARE nodes and have a xxn_ref tag. > > In short, we are thinking to simply add the tag network_type= > node_network (or network:type=node_network) to the node2node > network routes. I have a strong interest in this proposal. :) [1] If I understand you rightly, a route like https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1844941 would get an extra network_type=node_network tag. Nothing else would change. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) You say "we don't want to add another dimension" but you are effectively doing that; you're just doing it by adding a new tag rather than adding a value. That's not _necessarily_ a problem but it would be better done in an extensible way that might be useful for other tagging scenarios, rather than special-casing this one scenario. We currently have the "network=ncn|rcn|lcn" tag which broadly identifies the _importance_ of the route. What we do not have is a tag to identify the _character_ and _purpose_ of the route. All bicycle routes (except MTB) get lumped together as a generic route=bicycle. This is increasingly a problem as routes are devised and signposted for performance cycling, bikepacking, and so on. For example, there are two new performance cycling routes in Wales which I'd like to map (https://www.visitsnowdonia.info/ffordd-brailsford-way), but which would be misleading if tagged in the same way as other NCN/RCN/LCN routes in Britain. You're proposing a tag called "network_type", but it's a tag for the route, and what you're using it to describe is the character and purpose of the route. (The network is already mapped in the network super-relation.) So I'd suggest that instead of network_type=, you add route_type= . This would achieve the same purpose; be semantically more appropriate; and be extensible to other routes where "route=bicycle" alone does not adequately capture the character and purpose of the route. Richard cycle.travel [1] I believe cycle.travel is the only OSM-based router that includes nodes in its turn-by-turn instructions, e.g. https://cycle.travel/map?from=51.0623,2.8582=51.0913,2.8531 . cycle.travel also has a few localised rules for rendering in the Netherlands and Belgium to cope with the sheer density of the node network. -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Walking & Cycling Node Network tagging: undoing the hijacking of rcn and rwn
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. Can you give an example of a "normal" rcn and a "node network" that someone has tagged as an rcn and explain what the problem is with this tagging? Best Regards, Andy ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Walking & Cycling Node Network tagging: undoing the hijacking of rcn and rwn
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 present the bottom line. Vr gr Peter Elderson Op do 29 aug. 2019 om 18:56 schreef s8evq : > > 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? > ___ > 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] Walking & Cycling Node Network tagging: undoing the hijacking of rcn and rwn
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? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
