On Mon, 28 Nov 2011, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > I would like to propose that: > > - Local cycle networks with objective, on-the-ground evidence (usually > signposts) are tagged as lcn=yes (and lcn_ref=..., lcn_name=..., or the > relations equivalent) as at present. > > - Cycle networks that are not significantly verifiable on the ground, but are > proposed for official adoption and are under active discussion with the > transport authority, are tagged as lcn=proposed. > > - Large-scale (non-NCN) leisure routes and county-wide networks are moved to > rcn=, to accord with the similar routes already tagged as such (e.g. National > Byway and light-blue-number routes). > > - Non-network routes are not tagged as lcn=, but may of course be tagged as > route=bicycle (perhaps as a relation). > > Thoughts?
Very sensible, I'm all for this... no tagging for the render(s) in this proposal either. regards, Derick _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
