Op zo 1 sep. 2019 om 12:35 schreef Andy Townsend <ajt1...@gmail.com>:
> On 29/08/2019 15:52, Peter Elderson wrote: > > LS > > With the arrival of cycling node networks, the Dutch, German and > > Belgian mappers decided to claim (hijack) the network value rcn for > > those node networks. This exception was copied with the claim of > > network=rwn for the walking node networks. > > Would it be possible to try and describe in a bit more detail what has > happened, without using judgmental terms such as "hijack"? I'd start > with a link helping people understand what a "cycling node network" is. > Sure. A node network consists of numbered nodes (signs) with short routes between pairs of adjacent nodes. Eg nodes 10, 35 and 22 with routes 20-35, 10-22 and 22-35, and then each of these nodes has other connections to other nodes. The idea is that a cyclist/hiker plans a route along these nodes, so a trip consists of a series of node numbers. This differs from regular cycling/walking routes which contain chains of ways to follow, or subrelations containing the ways. Node networks were first designed and implemented for cycling in Belgium, then spread to Nederland and Germany, and they are now also used extensively for walking. Tagging of regular cycle route relations is route=lcn for local routes, rcn for regional routes, ncn for national routes, icn for international routes. Node network connections are short local routes, but if you just tag these as lcn you cannot tell the difference between regular local routes and node2node routes belonging to a node network. For rendering, checking integrity, planning and routing, the types need to be different. Same for other scopes. Rather than creating a new network value, cycle network taggers decided that rcn wasn't much used anyway, so they reserved that value for cycling node networks. The walking node networks later copied that: lwn, nwn and iwn for regular and long distance walks, rwn for walking node networks. To get an idea how that works out: this is a part of the waymarked trails hiking view in Nederland, around Eindhoven. Walking network routes are orange. https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#?map=10!51.4726!5.6261 > Can you give an example of a "normal" rcn and a "node network" that > someone has tagged as an rcn and explain what the problem is with this > tagging? > The problem is that node networks are different from regular walking/cycling routes in most aspects, except the mode of transport. They need different rendering, different planning tools, different routing and different integrity checking. At the same time, node networks and regular routes for more modalities are emerging. Node networks can also have different geographical scopes. If you call them all regional, you lose the actual scope. The idea now is to stop reserving rXn (a scope value) for a specific network configuration type. rcn should just mean regional cycling, and by default regular route configuration (chain of ways) is assumed. We now want to add a separate tag for network configuration type. Could have more than one value, but for now we need only one, indicating that the route relation belongs to a node network. This will return the network=rXn in Germany, Belgium and Nederland for its intended use as documented on the OSM hiking/cycling wiki's, while at the same time opening up a more generic way to document network configuration type for data users including rendering. There are significant advantages in maintenance load as well, but that's a bonus. I hope this clears things up? In terms of proposal, we propose one extra value "node_network" for the key "network_type". Nothing is changed, nothing is removed. So we think zero impact on the current base. It's up to renderers and other data users to make use of the extra tag. Best Regards, > > Andy > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
