>Description: >type=route - this is a route >route=road - this is a route for motorcars >network=e-road - this is a cars' route, which is related >to E-road network
IMO network=* should be read as "is a route, which is a part of the E-road network". These connections are not a real part of the agreed-on network, but local roads and links that act as a tool to route between them. Therefore, I'd say it would be better to differentiate these already at the network tag; say, network=e-road_link Also, they exist where two E-roads intersect at a grade separated junction, but the connecting links are not a part of either route relation. If they were a part of the e-road relations, there would also be some other onramp link roads, ones that get traffic from local roads and which are guideposted just as the connecting ramps between actual E-roads. There's less room for random inclusions, when these instruments to routing are a separate network=*, one which osm mappers are constructing on their own. Btw, maybe just a tag would suffice? >e-road=A_link - this is a connecting route between two >European routes What are A and B class E-roads? Which one should one use, when it's a connection between an A and a B class route? Even if they don't exist now (do they?), they might exist in the future. -- Alv _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
