Minh Nguyen wrote: > As with the network tag on bus routes, what's important for both > network and cycle_network is that the route is intended to form > part of a coherent *network* (almost like a brand, but not quite).
It's also useful for those of us writing routers, as it means we can avoid applying a route relation uplift in those states that send bike routes along entirely unsuitable state roads. (New York is a particular offender but there are others.) On my relationising travels, I spotted a couple of places where people had mapped a city cycle network as a single route relation, often with "System" in the title: Flagstaff Urban Trail System was one such. This is clearly wrong. As a quick fix I changed the relation tagging from type=route to type=network - which, interestingly, Waymarked Trails still renders: https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=2815833 - and created relations for some of the longer routes. But really it needs all the routes to be broken out into individual relations and given a common cycle_network tag. cheers Richard -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/USA-f5284732.html _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
