Sustrans, who developed the network, uses 'NCN' as the abbreviation. I would prefer NCN25, though I appreciate it is a bit verbose. But if they can be rendered in red/blue boxes as per the road signs, then I think that would be a reasonable alternative. Mind you, the rendering can do that even if the tag says NCN or N or whatever, by simply dropping the letters if it knows it is part of NCN
David On 10/07/2007 22:06, Andy Allan wrote: > Hi all, > > There's currently little national consistency with the ncn_ref values. > Variations are: > 4 (digits only) > N4 (1 char prefix) > NR4 (2 char prefix) > NCN 4 (3 char prefix, and space) > NCN25 (3 char prefix, no space) > R79 (regional, 1 char prefix) > RR47 (regional, 2 char prefix) > proposed NR41 (free text) > >>From looking at the coverage, the first and second are quite popular, > with the 1 char regional routes prevalent, especially in Kent. I'd > like to get some consistency, since it looks a mess on my renderings! > > Personally, I prefer the digits only, but I'm not 'into' the national > cycle network much, so I'm interested to see if there is a convention > established elsewhere in print. The signposts I've seen have only the > route number. My personal feeling is that the N prefix is redundant. > > I've started tagging London Cycle Network with an lcn_ref tag. Would > we be better off doing similar for the Regional Routes (rcn_ref)? I'd > like to render them differently (red for ncn, blue for lcn is my > current theme) and it's just easier for me to do so based on tags > rather than values. > > I'd appreciate anyone's thoughts. > > Cheers, > Andy > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-GB mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-gb > _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-gb
