Hi, As you probably already know I've been working very intensively on the rcn routes for the past month. I brought together the routes into networks and created a collection relation to refer to the network relations.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1726882 I've been working on a Python script which runs inside JOSM to help me with the chore of checking each and every node/knooppunt and the route relations connecting them. The more important function of this script is to regularly do quality control on the whole bunch of relations and nodes top down and from the bottom up. I also created a wiki page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Belgium/Cycle_Routes/Node_Network This page summarizes the remaining obvious problems with the nodes and the routes. It's easy to see where there are less than 3 rcn routes connecting to a node, how many roads start from/end at/pass through a node and links are provided to jump directly to the node on the map. In the tables on the right side of the page the routes which still have problems are shown. I check whether they are continuous in forward and backward direction (I've been sorting all their members) and I've been adding forward and backward roles on the members that needed them. I realise now that I didn't do it as described here though: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Ldp#.28C.29_Network_tagging Instead I did it this way: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User_talk:Ldp So this might be(come) a problem. I'm still trying to come up with a way to check forward/backward continuity of the route relations with the 'conventional' way of tagging roles. Ldp also suggested splitting up the network relation for Limburg which contains more than 800 members. Which brings me to my next point. When I started this tour of Flanders, I was convinced I was going to discover some sort of logic with regards to the numbering of the nodes. There seem to be nodes which actually do belong together in a network, but there also many for which it is hard to tell to which network they actually belong. I've been trying to create networks where each node number appeared only once, but I failed in the attempt. So at some point I created imaginary networks in despair with ridiculous names like Dijlelandse Kouters. At other points I simply added two nodes with the same number to the same network. There are also nodes for which it is hard to pinpoint one OSM node, across canals on roundabouts. These already share the same node number and I'd like to have a way to distinguish them from the other nodes which happen to have the same number Anyway, do we throw all of them into bigger relations? We could also work multilayered. Now there is this: collection relation (Belgium) network relations (39-40 of them) route relations and nodes Which could become: collection (Belgium) collection (Provinces W-Vl, O-Vl, Antw, Vl-Br, Limb., Liège) (In the other French speaking provinces there are no node networks (yet)) collection (Kust, Westhoek, Brugse Ommeland, Meetjesland, Leiestreek (W.Vl & O.Vl) Vlaamse Ardennen, Scheldeland (Antw en O.Vl), Kempen (Antw. en Limb.), Hageland, Pajottenland, Maasstreek, Midden-Limburg, Haspengouw (Vl.Br en Limb.), Voerstreek, Höhes Venn) network (39-40 of them) route The advantage would be that it would be easier to manage. When somebody needs a GPX containing all the routes and nodes for only Hageland or just one part of Kempen or all networks of the province of Antwerp. Another issue is whether to include the nodes in the route relations, or not. I took them all out except for the route relations in Limburg, as in the rest of the country that seemed to be the convention. There is no real need to include them, since they are already included through the ways and now they are also members of the network relations. And the last issue is, when one node is represented by several OSM nodes. I created an extra relation to connect them (note=52-52) and the ways that are members of this relation are not members of the route relations that start/end at these nodes anymore. This simplifies matters a lot. So the route relations start/end at the nodes and don't interconnect those OSM nodes anymore. Anyway, let me know what needs to be done differently and I'll try to comply. It would, of course, also be nice if we could find ways to add the nodes that are still missing and to fix the problems reported on the wiki page I created. (But those are the harder problems, which need extra surveying, the easy ones have already been dealt with by me, myself and I) Kind regards, Jo
_______________________________________________ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
