Re: [OSM-talk-be] Regional walking networks
Sorry, for bringing up this topic in the first place. I thought that a new consensus on mapping regional mapping networks was reached, since an experienced mapper was using it. While I understand that there are pros and cons on the documented method and Gerard's method, I continue to use the documented method. Simply because this is the only one that new mappers can learn by looking at the documentation. I regret that people will have to use different methods for the different networks. I would rather see that everybody uses the same method. Discussion on changing the method can go on, but IMHO everybody should use the old, documented method until a new consensus is reached and documented. Hopefully a program can do the conversion in such a case. I did some additions to the Zuid-Dijleland network, but right now I'm hesitating to add nodes (in case I get the time to walk there again). As for the naming of the networks. I think the situation for the walking networks is different than for the cycling networks. Walking networks do not have the 00-99 limitation for example. I will keep using the names found on the signposts, simply because I do not have access to any other source. I will also keep adding any route tagged as 'Kempense Heuvelrug to the 'Antwerpse Kempen' network-relation, since they belong to that one (according to the signposts). Maybe we should create another network-relation for the routes and the nodes belonging to the networks documented by an additional source. We could have a 'Kempense Heuvelrug' as a subset of the 'Antwerpse Kempen' relationship. Assuming they are not identical. Inventing names for a group of nodes and routes is fine, but how does someone else know where to add new nodes and routes ? One should document clearly which nodes and routes go where. I think this (inventing names) is not needed (yet) for the walking networks. So, do not expect any change in my tagging behaviour for walking networks until a consensus is reached. Hopefully I get notified when this is the case. regards m ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
Re: [OSM-talk-be] Regional walking networks
Hi Marc, 2011/10/12 Marc Gemis marc.ge...@gmail.com Sorry, for bringing up this topic in the first place. I thought that a new consensus on mapping regional mapping networks was reached, since an experienced mapper was using it. Don't feel sorry. The only way to get forward and improve is by discussing these topics, experimenting with new ways of doing things, etc. While I understand that there are pros and cons on the documented method and Gerard's method, I continue to use the documented method. Simply because this is the only one that new mappers can learn by looking at the documentation. I regret that people will have to use different methods for the different networks. I would rather see that everybody uses the same method. Discussion on changing the method can go on, but IMHO everybody should use the old, documented method until a new consensus is reached and documented. Hopefully a program can do the conversion in such a case. I got that base covered (automatic conversion). I did some additions to the Zuid-Dijleland network, but right now I'm hesitating to add nodes (in case I get the time to walk there again). No need to hesitate, just add them and any routes you encounter. It's more important to have the data. We can always modify it when it's there. As for the naming of the networks. I think the situation for the walking networks is different than for the cycling networks. Walking networks do not have the 00-99 limitation for example. I will keep using the names found on the signposts, simply because I do not have access to any other source. I will also keep adding any route tagged as 'Kempense Heuvelrug to the 'Antwerpse Kempen' network-relation, since they belong to that one (according to the signposts). I think walking/hiking networks are easier, for one thing because there are no one way streets for pedestrians, so no forward/backward roles needed. Since they were developed later and because there are a lot more nodes in these networks, the tourism services seem to have decided not to limit themselves to 00-99, for which I'm grateful; it makes it a lot easier to know which nodes belong to a certain network. Also the naming is better thought through. When more walking/hiking networks show up, maybe we can use those names as inspiration for the cycle networks. In my opinion they are simply too big, if all of Kempen/Leiestreek/Westhoek have to go in one network. I tend to think they too learned from the 'mistakes' they made with the cycle node networks. Oddly those 'mistakes' were not made in the Limburg network of cycle routes and I thought all the others were inspired on that one. Maybe we should create another network-relation for the routes and the nodes belonging to the networks documented by an additional source. We could have a 'Kempense Heuvelrug' as a subset of the 'Antwerpse Kempen' relationship. Assuming they are not identical. If the signposts have Kempense Heuvelrug, I would create a separate network relation for it. We can always have collection relations to group them together at a higher level. In fact I would like to create a hierarchy of levels in the collections of cycle nodes: Collection: cycle node networks in Belgium Collections: cycle node networks in West-Vlaanderen, Oost-Vlaanderen, Antwerpen, Vlaams-Brabant, Limburg, Liège, Hohes Venn Collections: Kust, Westhoek, Brugse Ommeland, Meetjesland Meetjesland, Leiestreek, Waasland, Scheldeland, Vlaamse Ardennen Scheldeland, Kempen Vlaams-Brabant West, Vlaams-Brabant Oost (might not be necessary) I don't think there is a need to subdivide Limburg at this level. Networks:mostly as I have them now. Maybe subdivide Limburg in Maasstreek, Midden-Limburg, Haspengouw Inventing names for a group of nodes and routes is fine, but how does someone else know where to add new nodes and routes ? One should document clearly which nodes and routes go where. I think this (inventing names) is not needed (yet) for the walking networks. Indeed it isn't. See above. As far as the cycle nodes go, they all belong to a network relation now. I don't guarantee that I won't feel tempted to shift some of them once more, but I don't expect us to find many new ones any more in Belgium. If somebody does encounter a new one, it can be assigned to the same network as the surrounding nodes. (In JOSM it's easy to get an overview of those networks when using 'kaarttekenstijlen'. The nodes with an rcn_ref can be highlighted in a colour depending on the network they belong to). When a new node is encountered on the 'border' between two networks, it can be assigned to the network where the node number makes most sense (either because it's missing or because it's near to the surrounding node numbers). That's what I've been doing in September and it's what I'm doing in The Netherlands at the moment for the unassigned nodes. So, do
Re: [OSM-talk-be] Regional walking networks
Oops, hadn't seen Eimai's message on trac and added one of my own: http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/4017 No idea if this will resolve anything, but we can at least try. Cheers, Jo ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
Re: [OSM-talk-be] Regional walking networks
On Tuesday 11 October 2011 02:46:35 Gerard Vanderveken wrote: I believe the Wiki should be changed and in stead of the node tag, a name or ref tag should be used. We've talked about this issue so often now, and we keep having the same problem with the name or ref tags: it's not those routes' names or reference numbers. It's the network which has a name, not the routes themselves. And what the Lonvia map shows is actually a result of using the name tag inappropriately. See also this discussion.: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-be/2011-August/002213.html At the end I asked for a feature request on the website of Open Street Map and Potlatch, to have more info beside the meaningless relation id numbers. http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/4017 As you can see this note tag is an abuse and will never be supported by the website or Potlatch. Well, in my eyes using the name tag would be abuse. And we use the note tag just because it's the best tag available without having to get support for some other tags, and luckily it's shown in JOSM as well. Do you have better proposals? [...] I would prefer to have 3 networks (Dijleland, Kouters and Pajottenland) in stead of one large Groene Gordel. I think it will be too big with too many nodes and routes (some in duplication) for being practical. (It may also hit the limit for maximun number of members) Also the people that live there, love their region and don't want to be part of some politically defined artificiallity. http://www.nieuwsblad.be/article/detail.aspx?articleid=DMF20111008_072 In general, I would take the divisions as listed in WikiPedia http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fietsnetwerk#Status_in_Belgi.C3.AB and put that as base in the OSM wiki http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Belgium/Cycle_Routes#Cycle_N ode_Networks The problem is: can we get those divisions without actually looking at the maps the publish? Greetings Ben ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
Re: [OSM-talk-be] Regional walking networks
On Tuesday 11 October 2011 13:05:30 Jo wrote: I suppose the ref tag might be more appropriate. It is indeed a bit odd to use note for it, OTOH that's the only tag that was used consistently in all the 1000s of relations I've seen so far... Me removing the names on those route relations made the problem that Potlatch does not and will not display them more accute though. When ref is used, is it shown in Potlatch? If we reach a decision to change note into something else, no manual labour will be involved to change them wholesale. My script can take care of that, both for hiking and cycling routes. Consensus between contributors in Belgium, The Netherlands and Germany needs to be reached though. People here should stop thinking in terms of does editor X show Y. We tag the correct information, and if editors support it, then that's an bonus. We decided on the note tag long ago, and IIRC it was JOSM that started showing the note tag after we decided to use that tag for it. The routes don't have a reference number, they don't have a name, they just connect two nodes, so we chose not to use the ref or name tag. But since we obviously needed a little bit of help to know which relation is which, we used the note tag. That's what I did, in fact. I don't have the maps published by the tourism offices of the provinces. I do have a file obtained from Fietsnet with a network for each node, but I used that only as guidance. It took an inordinate amount of time to try and assign those nodes to networks. I'm relatively pleased with the result, but I don't guarantee that I'm entirely done shifting them around... I agree that inventing a name like Dijlelandse Kouters (based on Brabantse Kouters combined with Dijleland) was not the best thing to do and I'll remove that one. Except that I'm pretty sure that Fietsnet has been looking at the published maps as well. And I checked this out in the past by looking for differences between the published maps and the situation in reality and check them with Fietsnet, which consistently showed the situation in those maps, even though some routes would just be impossible. What do people think of the following names I 'invented' though? Westkust (part of Westhoek) Scheldeland Denderstreek Voorkempen Kalmthoutse Heide Hageland Droog Haspengouw Probably as good as any other name. The problem for me is: why even invent names like these? They're completely arbitrary and don't conform to any subdivision of the network in real life, so why should we tag them as such? All these names are based on Wikipedia searches I performed. So it's not as if they are based on nothing. I doubt that it will be possible to encounter them anywhere on the guide posts though. For the other subdivisions of Kust, Westhoek, Meetjesland, Leiestreek, Waasland, Scheldeland, Vlaamse Ardennen and Kempen I simply used Noord, Zuid, Oost en West to subdivide them. What about splitting up Limburg in 3 or 4 regions? Maasland, Haspengouw, Midden-Limburg and the part that extends into Liège. Voerstreek was already separate. Why even split it up at all in Belgium? For all I care, use one big network for every province, given that these networks are controlled by provinces. Greetings Ben ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
Re: [OSM-talk-be] Regional walking networks
2011/10/11 Ben Laenen benlae...@gmail.com On Tuesday 11 October 2011 13:05:30 Jo wrote: I suppose the ref tag might be more appropriate. It is indeed a bit odd to use note for it, OTOH that's the only tag that was used consistently in all the 1000s of relations I've seen so far... Me removing the names on those route relations made the problem that Potlatch does not and will not display them more accute though. When ref is used, is it shown in Potlatch? If we reach a decision to change note into something else, no manual labour will be involved to change them wholesale. My script can take care of that, both for hiking and cycling routes. Consensus between contributors in Belgium, The Netherlands and Germany needs to be reached though. People here should stop thinking in terms of does editor X show Y. We tag the correct information, and if editors support it, then that's an bonus. We decided on the note tag long ago, and IIRC it was JOSM that started showing the note tag after we decided to use that tag for it. The routes don't have a reference number, they don't have a name, they just connect two nodes, so we chose not to use the ref or name tag. But since we obviously needed a little bit of help to know which relation is which, we used the note tag. Maybe the fact that this discussion seems to recur every so often is an indicator that something is not logical about it. Since these routes ultimately have to be entered by people and these people make a choice, which is not easily altered (I tried in the case of RoRay) as to what editor they use, it does matter whether editors support the way we tag those relations. Ultimately that's why, until recently, all the route relations had identical note and name tags. I'm working in The Netherlands now and there I find that they often use the name of the network in the name tag. I started by changing that to network:name, but now I''m taking them away, since it's information that can be deduced from the membership of the network relation. That's what I did, in fact. I don't have the maps published by the tourism offices of the provinces. I do have a file obtained from Fietsnet with a network for each node, but I used that only as guidance. It took an inordinate amount of time to try and assign those nodes to networks. I'm relatively pleased with the result, but I don't guarantee that I'm entirely done shifting them around... I agree that inventing a name like Dijlelandse Kouters (based on Brabantse Kouters combined with Dijleland) was not the best thing to do and I'll remove that one. Except that I'm pretty sure that Fietsnet has been looking at the published maps as well. And I checked this out in the past by looking for differences between the published maps and the situation in reality and check them with Fietsnet, which consistently showed the situation in those maps, even though some routes would just be impossible. I used it as a guideline, not as a reference. Until recently I had no idea of the general whereabouts of Meetjesland, Leiestreek, etc. Many of the nodes in OSM don't conform to what Fietsnet knows about them. What do people think of the following names I 'invented' though? Westkust (part of Westhoek) Scheldeland Denderstreek Voorkempen Kalmthoutse Heide Hageland Droog Haspengouw Probably as good as any other name. The problem for me is: why even invent names like these? They're completely arbitrary and don't conform to any subdivision of the network in real life, so why should we tag them as such? All these names are based on Wikipedia searches I performed. So it's not as if they are based on nothing. I doubt that it will be possible to encounter them anywhere on the guide posts though. For the other subdivisions of Kust, Westhoek, Meetjesland, Leiestreek, Waasland, Scheldeland, Vlaamse Ardennen and Kempen I simply used Noord, Zuid, Oost en West to subdivide them. What about splitting up Limburg in 3 or 4 regions? Maasland, Haspengouw, Midden-Limburg and the part that extends into Liège. Voerstreek was already separate. Why even split it up at all in Belgium? For all I care, use one big network for every province, given that these networks are controlled by provinces. Well, you seem to agree on something with Gerard. In Vlaams-Brabant we actually do have names for the regions. And that's where I started. In the other provinces, those regions seem to a lot bigger. We have 2 reasons for having an rcn_ref twice in a network relation: - split nodes around canals, on roundabouts, on separated cycleways on 2 sides of a road. - the decision of the tourism offices to only use 00-99 (except in Limburg and Hohes Venn and on the hiking networks) When using 1 relation for an entire province or region, like say Kempen, this network relation will 1. become a big mess 2. contain 1500 members, which becomes impractical to work with. If you
Re: [OSM-talk-be] Regional walking networks
On Tuesday 11 October 2011 15:21:47 Jo wrote: Maybe the fact that this discussion seems to recur every so often is an indicator that something is not logical about it. Since these routes ultimately have to be entered by people and these people make a choice, which is not easily altered (I tried in the case of RoRay) as to what editor they use, it does matter whether editors support the way we tag those relations. Ultimately that's why, until recently, all the route relations had identical note and name tags. The reason why it keeps coming up is because people fail to learn the basic rules about mapping in OSM: (1) don't tag for the renderer (most people seem to grab this idea) and (2) don't tag for the editor (this one is more difficult for some to understand) We can go on and on, but tagging these routes with name tags is a clear example of tagging for the editor. Ben ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
Re: [OSM-talk-be] Regional walking networks
Ben Laenen wrote: On Tuesday 11 October 2011 15:21:47 Jo wrote: Maybe the fact that this discussion seems to recur every so often is an indicator that something is not logical about it. Since these routes ultimately have to be entered by people and these people make a choice, which is not easily altered (I tried in the case of RoRay) as to what editor they use, it does matter whether editors support the way we tag those relations. Ultimately that's why, until recently, all the route relations had identical note and name tags. The reason why it keeps coming up is because people fail to learn the basic rules about mapping in OSM: (1) don't tag for the renderer (most people seem to grab this idea) and (2) don't tag for the editor (this one is more difficult for some to understand) We can go on and on, but tagging these routes with name tags is a clear example of tagging for the editor. We want to tag for the people and for usabillity. The current reasoning is flawed. -The route between 2 points in a network has no name, so we do not tag a name in OSM. -People can't work well with unnamed objects, so we give the route a name by using start point number - end point number -Since the route has no name, we can't use the name tag and so we put the name in the note tag. A purist point of view is made, which is then compromised in the wrong way and this leads to these discussions over and over again. Do simply what is needed and have this name where it belongs. In the name tag. This will be the end of this ever recurring discussion. If it is purity that has to come first, then we should have no note tag as well and those note tags should be deleted? We are lucky that JOSM supports this note tag, otherwise there was no way of managing those networks in a decent way. (Maybe a feature request to 'unsupport' this tag in JOSM is in order?) With the note tag as it is now, we can also not differentiate the routes from the different networks, because eg 12-34 can be part of a walking or biking network. The current practice is from the time that only one node network existed. Now that ways or regions can be part of several networks, an update is needed. So, I repeat my proposal to have a change of the Wiki and a decent name tag for the routes in a node network, where not only the start and end number is present but also preceeded by the (abbreviated) network name as done in the walking network Zuid-Dijleland. http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1641610 Every route is then clearly and consistently identifiable in all parts of the OSM space, be it the overviews on the website, the editors or the renderers. And as PolyGlot already said, thanks to his scripts, the change from note tag to name tag can be done overnight. We do not need to tag for, but also not to tag against. Regards, Gerard. Ben ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
Re: [OSM-talk-be] Regional walking networks
Ben Laenen wrote: On Tuesday 11 October 2011 16:49:00 Gerard Vanderveken wrote: We want to tag for the people and for usabillity. The current reasoning is flawed. -The route between 2 points in a network has no name, so we do not tag a name in OSM. Congratulations. Now if only we can end the discussion here... The problem is that the discussion starts here. It is not because there is no sign of it, that there is no name for these routes. Internally the managing people of the network uses also this 'route from 12 to 34' name in one or other form for the route segments to list their equipment (signposts) and to identify problems etc (See eg routedokter) -People can't work well with unnamed objects, so we give the route a name by using start point number - end point number I must be some kind of superhuman apparently since I was able to map these routes for years using Potlatch 1? Maybe, but we (and certainly I) aren't. But I think that you are no longer working in Potlatch for relations, as seeing the names in JOSM. is much more handy Errors were made, some of which could be prevented if the name was in its name tag. Eg Check out how many duplicated routes were removed by Polylot's edits during the last weeks. The point is that now the note tag is used to store the name of the route. -Since the route has no name, we can't use the name tag and so we put the name in the note tag. It's a note helping editors to describe what the relation actually is. The note has always been there to help fellow mappers and yourself later to get a bit more information on the object. It is only helping in JOSM, were it is displayed in lists. The others are and will stay out of luck. They have to check all objects one by one to find out which is which and that is not very practical. http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1698153 Which one is 186-246? In Potlatch, when you want to add a way to a relation, you get exact the same meaningless list of id numbers. Which one to pick? A purist point of view is made, which is then compromised in the wrong way and this leads to these discussions over and over again. Do simply what is needed and have this name where it belongs. In the name tag. This will be the end of this ever recurring discussion. And if you start using the name tag, you'll find that you have to write exceptions for everything using the data since it suddenly has routes with a name which it shouldn't present as its name. See what happens with the Lonvia map. And there is no simple way to solve this, you'll have to sort it out manually. I'm quite pleased with the result on the Lonvia hiking map. Thank you. http://hiking.lonvia.de/?zoom=14lat=50.80698lon=4.62237 If you don't want to use the name tag, because that name might be rendered, and then put it in the note tag, you are also tagging for (against) the renderers. Exactly as the objection of Eimai is in the trac https://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/4017#comment:9 Using the name tag would be an abuse. These routes simply don't have names, the networks do. Sure we can invent some pretty names to be shown in the relation lists, but then we'd need to special case every renderer that wants to actually render these routes to discard names of just these networks. That's not the better option. It is also tagging for the renderer, because one might not be pleased with the rendered result. If it is purity that has to come first, then we should have no note tag as well and those note tags should be deleted? Why is the note tag not appropriate for this usecase? If your only issue is helping with the editing of data, invent some other tag (mapper_and_editor_friendly_description=* or whatever) and try to get support for that in the editors. Suppose you have some exotic object you want to tag and there's no way to map it yet, would you also put its description in the name tag? (Bad example perhaps, as some actually do this.) It's not a name, and for some reason you agree that it's not a name, yet you still want to tag it as a name. (*) (*) where it is some predefined arbitrary description which follows some rules on the wiki which would also be subject to some discussion: should we use abbreviations? Should it include what kind of network it is? What language should it be in? The fact that you have to invent a name first is reason enough for me to not tag it as such. 12-34 is a name. It is maybe not the best name or the only name possible, but it is one. People who read it know over which route relation we are talking. And so it should not be in the note, but in the name tag. We don't need support for some additional tags that might or might not get supported. The name tag is appropriate and always supported. The language is no issue as they are simply in the language of the 'operator' Strictly speaking, the bus routes don't have a name either.
Re: [OSM-talk-be] Regional walking networks
On Tuesday 11 October 2011 19:58:39 Gerard Vanderveken wrote: If you don't want to use the name tag, because that name might be rendered, and then put it in the note tag, you are also tagging for (against) the renderers. Exactly as the objection of Eimai is in the trac https://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/4017#comment:9 Using the name tag would be an abuse. These routes simply don't have names, the networks do. Sure we can invent some pretty names to be shown in the relation lists, but then we'd need to special case every renderer that wants to actually render these routes to discard names of just these networks. That's not the better option. It is also tagging for the renderer, because one might not be pleased with the rendered result. I'm not entirely sure whether you are being serious here... So I'm not tagging something for the editor by entering wrong data which has the effect that said wrong data isn't rendered, which we didn't want anyway, because it was wrong data. And that's suddenly tagging for the renderer? [...] Give me one reason why this has to involve the name tag and absolutely is impossible in any other way. Look, we can go on and on with this, but the simple fact remains: it's not a name, don't tag it as such, even when that means you'll have to remember a six-digit number every now and then until Potlatch actually will be able to handle relations properly one day. Greetings Ben ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
Re: [OSM-talk-be] Regional walking networks
On Monday 10 October 2011 21:19:56 Marc Gemis wrote: I use both openwandelkaart and Lonvia to check my edits. Recently, I noticed that some walking networks are rendered differently in Lonvia. The routes have a rectangle with 2 characters (ZD - Zuid-Dijleland and KH - Kempische Heuvelrug). Furthermore some routes have a proper lavel (ZD 100-101) instead of just the ID of the object. Rivierenland - http://hiking.lonvia.de/?zoom=13lat=51.09385lon=4.40489layers=FFBT0 (also click Routes in lower right corner) vs Zuid-Dijleland - http://hiking.lonvia.de/?zoom=13lat=50.7784lon=4.60522 Is this the new standard to tag regional walking networks ? Can this be documented on the wiki ? That happens when you use the name=* tag for the network name on these routes. As with cycle node networks, don't use the name=* tag on the routes. Another question is regarding the name of those networks. Apparently, the name of the brochure (see http://www.wandelroutes.org/wandelnetwerk.htm ) does not always match the name on the signposts. E.g. Kempense Heuvelrug (brochure) is Antwerpse Kempen (signposts) In het land van Stille Waters (brochure) is Scheldeland (signposts) Which name is preferred ? Should we somehow mention both names ? Or is e.g. Antwerpse Kempen a superset of the Kempense Heuvelrug ? Use the one on the signposts. Greetings Ben ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
Re: [OSM-talk-be] Regional walking networks
Ben Laenen wrote: On Monday 10 October 2011 21:19:56 Marc Gemis wrote: I use both openwandelkaart and Lonvia to check my edits. Recently, I noticed that some walking networks are rendered differently in Lonvia. The routes have a rectangle with 2 characters (ZD - Zuid-Dijleland and KH - Kempische Heuvelrug). Furthermore some routes have a proper lavel (ZD 100-101) instead of just the ID of the object. Rivierenland - http://hiking.lonvia.de/?zoom=13lat=51.09385lon=4.40489layers=FFBT0 (also click Routes in lower right corner) vs Zuid-Dijleland - http://hiking.lonvia.de/?zoom=13lat=50.7784lon=4.60522 Is this the new standard to tag regional walking networks ? Can this be documented on the wiki ? That happens when you use the name=* tag for the network name on these routes. As with cycle node networks, don't use the name=* tag on the routes. I believe the Wiki should be changed and in stead of the node tag, a name or ref tag should be used. See also this discussion.: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-be/2011-August/002213.html At the end I asked for a feature request on the website of Open Street Map and Potlatch, to have more info beside the meaningless relation id numbers. http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/4017 As you can see this note tag is an abuse and will never be supported by the website or Potlatch. I don't know or understand the rationale for the note tag either, but find the name tag as proposed in the talk, much more convenient (as also demonstrated by the2 lonvia links from the TS). The listings on the website will be more meaningful http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1641610 in opposite to Rivierenland http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1698153 Same goes when you want to add a street to an existing relation. In the dropdown, you see only id numbers and so you can not see which is the right relation to add to. When they are named it is much more obvious. And a second thing to change would be the addition of the endpoints in the routes as described by the Wiki. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cycle_Node_Network_Tagging#.28B.29_Route_tagging This has no function at all and it is not provided for bike and foot routes to have node members. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route#Members (nodes are only for PT routes as stop, ...) It is also superfluous, because the roads at start and end contains these points already. For the network relation, which groups all routes , there you could find some sense in it to have the nodes listed. Another question is regarding the name of those networks. Apparently, the name of the brochure (see http://www.wandelroutes.org/wandelnetwerk.htm ) does not always match the name on the signposts. E.g. Kempense Heuvelrug (brochure) is Antwerpse Kempen (signposts) In het land van Stille Waters (brochure) is Scheldeland (signposts) Which name is preferred ? Should we somehow mention both names ? Or is e.g. Antwerpse Kempen a superset of the Kempense Heuvelrug ? Use the one on the signposts. In fact there are only few bike node networks in Belgium (Flanders actually). They are as such listed on the signposts. From most networks, these are publicised on more than 1 map, which have then distinct titles. Eg Vlaams-Brabant has 2 networks Hageland and Groene Gordel. Hageland fits on 1 map, but Groene Gordel comes with 3 maps: Dijleland, Brabantse Kouters and Pajottenland - Zennevallei. http://www.brabantsekouters.be/gemeenten/gemeenten.asp These are also 3 regions. PolyGlot has tried to find a logic in this and tried to exclude double numbering of nodes in one network. So he invented also non-existing networks as eg Dijlelandse Kouters. http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1726882 This should be rectified. Altough the villages are well defined for belonging to their region eg Dijleland, etc, it is not always evident for the nodes itself as some are on the borders. The maps themselves are not helping either as they make no (or not always) distinction between the different networks or even provinces. I would prefer to have 3 networks (Dijleland, Kouters and Pajottenland) in stead of one large Groene Gordel. I think it will be too big with too many nodes and routes (some in duplication) for being practical. (It may also hit the limit for maximun number of members) Also the people that live there, love their region and don't want to be part of some politically defined artificiallity. http://www.nieuwsblad.be/article/detail.aspx?articleid=DMF20111008_072 In general, I would take the divisions as listed in WikiPedia http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fietsnetwerk#Status_in_Belgi.C3.AB and put that as base in the OSM wiki http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Belgium/Cycle_Routes#Cycle_Node_Networks Regards, Gerard. Greetings Ben ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
