On Sunday 24 January 2016 22:38:06 Sander Deryckere wrote: > I think we should get away from those rcn, lcn and ncn networks. And be > freer in the allowed networks. > > Even now there are problems with rcn networks used for cycle nodes, as > those are getting introduced in France and Germany, while those countries > already use those networks for other route types.
I agree the network tags should be rethought a little bit. We had some issues years ago when in Antwerp they created a small network of cycle routes through the city, not touristic routes, but fast safe routes. These routes were at the time signed with markings on the ground, but have since disappeared. But now I think about it, I think Brussels still has similar signed routes? So all those networks are clashing with each other. At the very least we'll need to start making a distinction between touristic routes and functional routes (routes to actually go somewhere). I still like the hierarchy between local, regional and national (and international), but we need one set of those for touristic routes and one for functional routes. The Brussels network could then be one of those local ones, the bicycle highways regional. Ben _______________________________________________ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
