On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 3:02 PM, Jo <winfi...@gmail.com> wrote: > We have been tagging these networks this way since the beginning of > Openstreetmap.org. The network relations combine the nodes and the route > relations for a given network of numbered walking/cycling/horsback riding > network.
Please, give me an example where the nodes cannot belong to the route relation and need specificaly a "network" relation. > Just like Marc I've also been doing it this way since that is how it was > described on the wiki. The wiki is just a "proposal". I don't remember it was discussed on any global list (checked in my archives). It was surely not discussed in France and the examples I find are personal initiatives. > And I admit this was to make it possible to download the whole bunch in one > go with JOSM. I appreciate this honesty and I could even accept such thing in earlier OSM time where we missed the tools we have today (like overpass). > The combination of route and network relations works and it is an elegant > solution for this type of numbered node networks. The network relations are > not categories as such. This is where we differ. The "netwok" is just an attribut like many others (operator, branch). We don't accept this kind of collections for restaurants, banks, etc. and we have to be consistent and refuse it for routes for the same reasons. > Just like you aren't able to change how PT is mapped, because of too > 'complex' when rendering the beast, you won't be able to change this. So let > it be or remap them all yourself. While you're at it, also make sure all the > route relations become continuous once again. This is something I'm doing > every once in a while, as route relations break easily. I created scripts in > JOSM to help perform this task. I don't feel like rewriting these scripts, > just because you want to change how these networks have been mapped since > the very beginning. It's not the question to "remap everything" but move the network name down from the relation to its members. My intent is not to remove all of such relations but see if we can reject this proposal and provide a better solution in the wiki. Then advise my local community to not use them (and remove them in long term). > You can't expect everybody to read this mailing list, which is kind of moot > anyway, just like the imports list. It's always the same. Once we have a conflict between mappers, you need a meeting point where everyone can express his opinion and put all arguments on the table. What is writen in the wiki can be the result of such discussions. Note that the wiki provides a "discussion" page and this proposal was already objected since 2009... ([1]) Now, I wanted to see some real examples and followed the ones linked in the wiki: http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/20614 : type=network network=road description=Deutsche Bundesautobahnen" operator=Bundesrepublik Deutschland all members are route relations; route=road; tagged with operator=Bundesrepublik Deutschland This could be fixed by adding the tag "network_name=Deutsche Bundesautobahnen" in the route relations. http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/153968 type=network network=iwn name=Camino de Santiago The first member is a route relation: http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1247178 type=route route=hiking name=Voie de Soulac And, oh surprise, it belongs to 2 network relations. The second one is: http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3071561 type = network network=iwn name=Way of St. James name:es=Camino_de_Santiago http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/157868 type=network network=rcn name=Gooi en Vechtstreek More interesting, it's containing a mix of nodes and relations. Check the first relation: http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/150267 type=route route=bicycle network=rcn Check the first node: http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/45909336 Well, it belongs to the same route relation... My conclusions so far: The relation is not used consistently : sometimes you have a "name", sometimes just an "operator" or "description"; the values of the "network" key are inconstant. The relation for all motorways in Germany is only a collection/category. The "Camino de Santiago" is basically a "route master" linking smaller route segments together. It's even worse here since the same long route is modelized twice in the database... The bicycle network example shows that the nodes are finally on both types of relations. This could be simplified with a tag like "network:name". Shall I continue ? Pieren [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Relations/Proposed/Network _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
