Chris,
What would the advantage/disadvantage be of using a different network name
("usbrs" vs. "ncn") for U.S. bike routes. The author of open cycle map would
have to adjust their symbolization if we started using "usbrs". Is it good to
try to keep some international standard even though trail and route systems may
be different in various ways.
Spencer
________________________________
From: Chris Lawrence <[email protected]>
To: Spencer Riddile <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, March 9, 2009 5:23:46 PM
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] U.S. Bike Route 76
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 2:43 PM, Spencer Riddile
<[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm working on tagging Bike Route 76 in the Montgomery County, VA area. Is
> anyone else working on tagging national bike routes in the U.S.?
>
> Here is the combination of tags I'm using:
>
> type=route
> route=bicycle
> network=ncn
> ref=76
>
> Does that look correct? Can I add a name for the route (e.g. bike route
> 76)?
Assuming you're tagging using relations, that format is correct
(although you could adopt a different network name than "ncn" which is
of British origin; using "US" would make sense here); if you are not
using relations, although I think it's probably better if you do, then
the ncn_* tags Adam suggested should be used directly on the ways.
With relations, you could use name=Bike Route 76.
Chris
_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
