On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 10:27 AM, Spencer Riddile
<riddile_spen...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> What would the advantage/disadvantage be of using a different network name
> ("usbrs" vs. "ncn") for U.S. bike routes. The author of open cycle map
> would have to adjust their symbolization if we started using "usbrs". Is it
> good to try to keep some international standard even though trail and route
> systems may be different in various ways.
The advantage is that "ncn" isn't the name of the U.S. bike route
system ;-). Or, less glibly, the US Bike Route System isn't part of
the UK National Cycle Network.
But if other countries' mappers have also adopted ncn for their
top-level bike networks then the cart has already left the barn on
that, so it's not too important. It just means that a programmatic
tool that extracts bike networks for a particular country from the OSM
data is going to have to be smarter than simply looking at the network
tag.
Using e.g. operator=usbrs or operator=AASHTO (AASHTO designates the US
bike route system) along with network=ncn would probably be the next
best thing.
Chris
_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
