right now the nodes are not placed in the route relation. Although some older relations might contain them.
I think you will not find a lot of people in favor of changing the tagging scheme for those networks, just because you don't like the network relation. Anyway, if you want to change it, I propose you write a proposal with all the required changes, and post them to the Belgian, Dutch and German mailing lists and forums. I'm not going to stick out my neck for this. regards m On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Pieren <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Marc Gemis <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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 > > No, the tags on the node should be moved to the appropriate route > relation where you also set the network_:name. > > > 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 > > Is this question related to the "network" relation ? > > > 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 ? > > Create two route relations, one per network. > > Pieren > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
