Nodes currently are placed (where relevant) in both cycling and walking networks.
If one did not include nodes in route relations (I do that and prefer it; Jo, as he said earlier, does not), or in the network relation, or in both (slight redundancy, but quite useful IMO) then the cycling or hiking network name would have to be on the node. Again, I fail to see what the advantage would be for such a change. ALL tagging issues can be resolved by adopting a different set of tagging principles and therefore (within reason) can be changed using programming, but why would you want to? From: Marc Gemis Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 9:15 PM To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools Subject: Re: [Tagging] "Relations are not categories" excepted for "type=network" ? <snip> Putting the network name solely on the nodes might solve this. Until now, a node only belongs to one walking network. However it could belong to a cycling and walking network, hence, my previous proposal to include the network type in the network:name tag. So all problems for retagging could be solved, one could write a program to do this. I leave it to others to decide how urgent this retagging is. regards m
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
