I agree with Greg. Numbering systems having hierarchical levels
appear to be designed so that both numbers don't clash, as well as
"longer routes should be in higher levels." For the latter reason,
Greg gives excellent examples. I had a similar question regarding a
not-short (but not long, 39 km Skyline To The Sea) hiking trail and
didn't know whether to put it into the local or regional level.
Seeing as it connects two counties (while it somewhat rides the
boundary of those two counties) to the ocean I decided the correct
level was "regional."
Yes, these are quite frequently judgement calls, but I think using
the wisdom of length ("geographic extent") and adding an operator tag
(if appropriate or known) can guide us properly. It is not always
just federal, state and local governments that fit into a strict
hierarchy, as private/NGO/volunteer routes certainly do exist. We
simply must do our best effort at harmonizing these together, and I
think we are on the right track by applying simple, sane guidelines
like these.
Is this "coding for the renderer?" Maybe it leans in that direction,
but it is more like "coding for the semantics of our map" as because
we really do have hierarchical levels for (hiking, biking...) routes,
that makes it OK in my mind: consumers of OSM data have come to
expect these levels, so let's continue to respect them even when we
must coin something that isn't strictly defined or doesn't fit into
the shackles of government-defined hierarchy. If some de-tangling
might posit a better, richer set of semantics, let that discussion
live in the future when reasons and ideas are forthcoming and answers
can emerge and flourish.
SteveA
California
James Umbanhowar <[email protected]> writes:
The question is what network level should it, if at all, be tagged.
> Currently, there are three network levels, local/regional/national
that have been used. In other countries, these apply to different
levels of government that officially sanction the cycle route. In the
US there are several bicycle routes that are sanctioned by AASHTO. In
contrast, an analagous tag for hiking networks applies these levels
simply according to the spatial extent of the hiking trail and
optionally adds a operator tag for the organization that plans and
> maintains the trail.
Greg Troxel <[email protected]> answers:
As long as network level denotes a degree of spatial extent rather than
a specific naming scheme, I'd say East Coast Greenway should be
national. (In contrast, "Interstate" is both a notion of scale and a
specific numbering authority.)
My take on network levels for bike/hiking/etc. kinds of routes is that
they are clues as to the geographic extent and thus the area from which
people might care. So in the US
local: a few towns (Minuteman Bikeway, Cape Cod Rail Trail), not of
interest to those not thinking about the state
regional: covering most of a state (Midstate Trail (MA), Long Trail
(VT)), and notable to those thinking about a multi-state region, but
not really notable on the national scale
national: covering enough area to be notable at national scale
Appalachian Trail
Pacific Coast Trail
EC Greenway
_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
