My impression is that the point of having different levels of cycle routes (local, regional, national) is to avoid problems with names conflicting. That would suggest that Adam's interpretation is the way to go -- after all, there's not too much risk that two different cycle routes within the same metro area will have the same designation, right?
- Dan On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 4:06 PM, Adam Killian <vi...@bonius.com> wrote: > For whatever it's worth, I've been tagging the statewide cycle routes in > Pennsylvania as RCN. I originally was tagging them as NCN, but there are > actually 2 "interstate" cycle routes in the US, so I switched to RCN. > > I always took Andy's remark that LCN could mean "London cycle network" > to mean that LCN is the proper tag for networks within a metro area. > > --Adam > > Sam Vekemans wrote: > > Hi, > > how are you tagging state-wide cycle routes? > > > > I know we have > > lcn= for local cycle routes (named & not named) > > rcn=for regional cycle routes (ie metro area) > > > > then there's > > ncn=for nation wide > > but there's no > > scn (state cycle network) or pcn (province cycle network) > > > > in Quebec we have a state-wide network, but listed as ncn. (route de > verte) > > (the Trans Canada Trail isnt a 'cycle route' per say, but elements of > > it allows cycling on different surfaces). Do we make a new render for > > a 'recreational trail'? > > > > Is there an established practice? > > > > Thanks, > > Sam Vekemans > > Across Canada Trails >
_______________________________________________ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
