I have a route that is
mountain bike and
hiking and
horse
the route=mtb;hiking;horse functions .. at least for hiking and horse
..(but not mtb on
https://mtb.waymarkedtrails.org/#?map=6!-35.8356!149.48 - change it to
horse or hiking to see mapped sections of the BNT)
the network tag .. I have no idea on how to do multiple tags on this.
I am thinking of separating this into 3 relations .. but it is very messy.
My thoughts on the EV ... following my thinking on the above are;
Have 2 relations ... on on the EV, the other on the other entity (e.g.
BicItalia).
Bit messy. But each can use the relevant tags without conflict. Those
who want the national details rather than the international ones can
have it.
On 06-Mar-17 05:55 AM, Volker Schmidt wrote:
As EV routes are not managed as single entities, every route is split
in pieces managed on a country basis. I know the situation in Italy,
as I am involved in regional and national cycle routes here. EV routes
are handled by BicItalia which is part of FIAB, the "Italian
Federation of Friends of the Bicycle". All EV routes all have also
BicItalia numbering (BicItalia routes are ncn), but it is not
necessarily the case that the Italian part of a given EV corresponds
one-to-one to a BicItalia route. So it makes sense to tag the
individual EV routes in one country as one icn and to tie these icn
routes in the different countries together by a super relation. This
means that any BI route that is also part of an EV is part of at least
to bicycle route relations (it typically is also part of lower level
routes.
On 5 March 2017 at 19:38, Richard Fairhurst <rich...@systemed.net
<mailto:rich...@systemed.net>> wrote:
Europe has numerous international cycle routes signposted and
marketed as 'EuroVelo', and these are often mapped in OSM:
http://www.eurovelo.com/
Unfortunately the tagging is pretty inconsistent, especially when
routes are shared with national/regional (NCN/RCN) routes, as is
usually the case. Although a relation with 'network=icn' is the
convention for international cycling routes, people do sometimes
change this to 'network=ncn' and 'ref=EV<...>' for
tagging-for-the-renderer reasons. The result is that we have messy
and inconsistent tagging.
At present the wiki project page doesn't have any tagging guidance:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Europe/EuroVelo
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Europe/EuroVelo>
I would like to suggest that we formalise existing good practice
by saying that roads/paths on a EuroVelo route should directly be
part of a route relation. That relation should be tagged:
route=bicycle
network=icn
ref=11 [or whatever the EuroVelo route number is]
Grouping several route relations together in a 'master relation'
is all good (as these routes are often too long for one manageable
relation), as is operator/brand tagging to indicate that this is
EuroVelo in particular. But I'd like to document the above as the
minimum, simplest thing. It seems to be generally accepted and is
in line with NCN/RCN tagging.
Thoughts?
cheers
Richard
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
<https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging>
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
