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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 8:17 AM, Jo <[email protected]> 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_Categories&oldid=179750 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Tagging mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> > >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
