On 20/04/2011 11:24, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote:
This raises an important point that cropped up last week in Brum where Brian had tagged a serious of routes that the local campaign group, Pushbikes, are promoting. The issue was that these routes don't exist on the ground. Like a bus route there is nothing really to tell you a route exists though there is clearly information around (paper map etc) that confirms they do and shows you where they go, a bus route map would be similar. So for me whether it is part of a network or not is immaterial. As far as I'm concerned using ncn/lcn/lcn is the best way of tagging a signed logical route whether its part of a bigger network or not. For routes that are not signed perhaps another layer is needed so that you can print the route and follow it but it doesn't clutter the signed physical network version of the cycle map.
Bus routes do have a physical manifestation inasmuch as they usually have physical stops which usually list the routes which stop there.
This is pretty much like a bicycle route which has signs only at the junctions.
But yes, I would only tag a bicycle route which is signed on the ground. Though the OCM does support "proposed" routes, using dashed lines.
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
