Am 12.09.2019 um 23:24 schrieb Peter Elderson:
In NL node networks all node2node routes are route relations.
Then all the relations and the nodes are added to the network
relation, where the network:type (i.e. the setup/system/rules), the
network name, operator, website etc are tagged.
In NL node networks all node2node routes are route relations.
Then all the relations and the nodes are added to the network relation,
where the network:type (i.e. the setup/system/rules), the network name,
operator, website etc are tagged. Currently, the network relation for node
networks is used
To summarize:
- (highway) Use lcn=yes on the highway; (my Idea) maybe with some more
Information about the network like lcn:operator=*, lcn:ref=* or similar.
- (route-relation) split up the network into smaller relations going
from guidepost to guidepost. Seems very complicated, also to query/get
I think it makes sense to map preference routes as route relations, same as
node2node routes within node networks.
I am not a fan of network relations if they are just collections of
elements, but if the information about how they are organised and used is
also present and verifiable by survey
I see similarities of this approach with the hiking paths of the alpine
clubs, but with the important difference that the routes do not have a
reference.
And it's very similar to a node network, except that the nodes are not
numbered.
It's a 1:1 copy of the road network signposting (and please
sent from a phone
> On 12. Sep 2019, at 11:18, Janko Mihelić wrote:
>
> I don't think this is good mapping.
agreed, I didn’t imply it was good mapping, what I said was that it can be
mapped without question, because it is there, visible a verifiable.
No need for a relation at all, and I
I don't think this is good mapping. Firstly, this is not a route. A route
is something that gets you from one place to another. This is a network of
routes, and there is a tag for it, type=network[1] But this type of a
relation breaks the "Relations are not Categories" rule [2]. That's why I
think
sent from a phone
> On 12. Sep 2019, at 10:49, Peter Elderson wrote:
>
> If there is agreement that this actually is something worth mapping, I don't
> see a problem there.
this is how wikipedia works, in OpenStreetMap you do not need approval of
others that something is “worth” mapping,
I would say it is a system of preferential cycleroutes to different
destinations. It resembles the system of preferential truck routes in
Amsterdam.
It is a system, and it's visible on the ground. The arrow signs create a
route to the next signpost in the chosen direction. If there is agreement
