In Belgium and The Netherlands a network-relation is used to group together all nodes and routes of a walking network. This avoids that we have to repeat the name, operator, etc. on each route (signposted path between 2 nodes) and the nodes.
m. On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 5:58 PM, Pieren <pier...@gmail.com> wrote: > I discover that OSM contains 1575 relations of "type=network" > (taginfo). I guess its definition is coming from this wiki proposal: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Network > > Quotes: > "A network groups together routes that share common characteristics, > e.g. a common operator, a common classification scheme (e.g. E-road > network: "E 1", ..., "E 999"), ... " > > "Use cases > > Person A sees a bus route with number 217 and wonders how many other > bus routes exist in that city. > > Renderer M wants to render all German motorways using white font on > blue sign (official layout), and all E-roads with white font on green > sign. This can be implemented by adding rules for 20614 (view, XML, > Potlatch2, iD, JOSM, history, analyze, manage, gpx) and 20645 (view, > XML, Potlatch2, iD, JOSM, history, analyze, manage, gpx). > > Renderer M wants to render all cycle routes that belong to the > "D-Netz". However, there are a lot of other national cycle routes as > well. " > > Plus some attached relations examples very explicite. > > As raised in the "discussion" page, is that not exactly breaking the > "relations are not categories" ([1]) principle ? Can we delete such > relations when we meet them ? > > Pieren > > [1] > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Relations_are_not_Categories > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
