On Sat, 25 Apr 2020 at 10:31, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > My opinion. > > Routes go from A to B. They are not simple road segments. > > An example? > > Relation: Northbridge-Castle Cove (6282327) > Tags: > "name"="Northbridge-Castle Cove" > "ref"="NCC" > "route"="bicycle" > "type"="route" > "lcn"="yes" > "network"="Willoughby" > > The above is correct. > > It contains numerous road segments (ways). Some of these are tagged > lcn=yes. This is wrong. >
Agreed, the lcn=yes should go on the way segment (but is redundant if a relation exists) and not on the relation. > > Example? > > Way: Baringa Road (794266238) > Tags: > "source:name"="historical" > "surface"="paved" > "maxspeed"="50" > "name"="Baringa Road" > "source"="yahoo_imagery" > "highway"="residential" > "cycleway"="shared_lane" > "network"="lcn" > > There should be no "network"="lcn" on the as it does not, by itself, > form a route. > Agreed, the network tag should go on the relation not the way, the way itself could have lcn=yes if you know it's part of a route but it hasn't been mapped out as a relation yet. > Similarly I would remove the tag "lcn=yes" on any simple way. > Only if it's part of a network=lcn relation already, if not it's still useful to say there is a route here, but the route hasn't yet been mapped out as a relation. > > (I would also remove the source tag - I would assume that the state > source is old and there would have been a few edits of this from other > sources in the mean time.) > I only do that if I've changed the source, so if it's refering to geometry and I've updated the geometry I'll update it, but if you've made significant changes then I also think it's fair to remove since it's still present in the history.
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
