Hi The whole question of relation:type=route is a bit confused both in the wiki and in practice - with the inevitable result that I am probably not the only one who has adopted my own compromise conventions! For me, the most important thing is that we extend, so far as is reasonably possible, the concept of using a relation for a route! This gets around the multiple problems associated with a walker tagging a way as a footway and a cyclist tagging the same way as a cycleway and a rider tagging it as a bridleway! Let's at least agree to use relations for routes and keep the use of tags as a means of describing which means of transport are either physically capable of using, or legally allowed to use, a particular way. No information is lost by adopting this principle - and it allows much more description of a way so that it can be rendered either on the general map or on specialist maps for walkers, cyclists, etc.
The question of route network type is indeed just as confused, as Robert points out. Personally, I would deprecate uk_ldp (what's so special about the UK??) and stick to the internationalised convention of iwn/nwn/rwn/lwn. Using both systems is doubly confusing, as it is all too easy to think that the 'L' ins uk_ldp means 'local' (i.e. not long distance!) or the 'l' in lwn means 'long distance'! I would prefer to avoid, where possible, ending up with a tagging convention that was peculiar to the UK - although the nature of English public rights of way law - being internationally unique - does suggest the need for some specialised tagging. We already have the problem that the wiki http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/UK_public_rights_of_way suggests, for example, foot=yes for a 'UK' (should really be England and Wales) public footpath - and I have followed this - but shouldn't it really be foot=designated? With foot=yes left to describe what 'can' be done rather than what 'may' (legally) be done? The next issue is how to define iwn/nwn/rwn/lwn - although I suspect that a fairly pragmatic approach will emerge. A related issue is whether and when to add these routes to the listings on the dedicated wiki pages e.g. for UK walking and cycling routes. I am adding walking routes to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_United_Kingdom_Long_Distance_ Paths but there is an obvious issue as to what to include - I am tending to exclude 'lwn' and add the rest until someone shouts at me. So far as cycling routes are concerned on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_United_Kingdom_National_Cycle _Network, I have desisted from adding routes since having my wrist slapped for adding a cycling route that was not part of the national cycle network (which is a fair enough comment, given the name of the page even though it includes rcn's as well as ncn's). I can see the line has to be drawn somewhere! But is there / should there be a listing of other cycle routes somewhere? This is all a bit specialised - but it does become of increasing importance as mappers in well-mapped areas begin to move from mapping roads to mapping off-road ways. How do those of you more experienced than I think it best to carry this discussion forward? Mike Harris -----Original Message----- From: Robert Vollmert [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 20 February 2009 11:25 To: Ed Loach Cc: osm Openstreetmap Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Walking Routes - wiki needs some work? On Feb 20, 2009, at 11:14, Ed Loach wrote: > In the wiki, Relation:route[1] suggests network of uk_ldp for the UK > long distance path network, but Walking_Routes[2] suggests > iwn/nwn/rwn/lwn for network types. It looks like the uk_ldp goes back > over a year to October 2007, so there are probably a number of these > already in existence. The contradiction between the two pages has also > led to a relation I created based on the Walking_Routes page being > amended to that on the Relation:Route one (which is understandable if > people are already used to the Relation:Route definitions). > > I don’t know how to find out how many relations already exist tagged > with network=uk_ldp - perhaps someone could find out? And perhaps > someone could decide what to do about the wiki contradictions. Also on > the Relation:route page the Cambridge citibus network is still > mentioned in the network description, but the value in the network > column has been removed (browsing the page history). If you follow the tagwatch links from Relation:route, you can get at the numbers. network GB Europe uk_ldp 21 21 lwn 1 191 rwn 4 354 nwn 0 22 iwn 0 0 Cheers Robert _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
