Hey Marc, For clarity, the idea is to create a relation which represents a cycle highway, such as (for example) this one: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/10139557 We will _not_ add extra tags on the individual way segments.
I had a quick look to the E40-motorway somewhere. On that, there is a similar relation: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/84338#map=7/50.434/5.673 Note that this similar relation has `network=e-road`-tag. So, all in all, I do think that we are talking about exactly the same. Mvg, Pieter On 11.12.19 10:11, Marc Gemis wrote: >> Tagging scheme >> >> I'd actually go for `cycle_network=BE:cycle_highway`, as cycle_network >> normally has a country prefix. Because most (all?) of them are already >> tagged, we could simply update the tagging all at once. I'll do that next >> week, unless a better proposal or good reason not to is raised. > to be honest I find "network" strange in the context of a single > cycle_highway. All cycle_highways together form a network, but a > single one not. > We do not map the E 19 motorway as car_network:BE:motorway, but we do > have a relation for all parts of the E 19 in a route-relation (I > think, OSM website was soo slow yesterday when I tried to access the > page on E-motorways). > > Is this cycle_network value OK with the inventors of that tag ? Wasn't > it invented recently to distinguish cycle networks from local cycle > routes ? > > In conclusion: I would prefer another way to tag cycle highways > > regards > > m > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-be mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be -- Met vriendelijke groeten, Pieter Vander Vennet
<<attachment: pietervdvn.vcf>>
_______________________________________________ Talk-be mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
