Well, recreational routes and networks simply are not that organized, and jurisdiction or authority doesn't apply to most of them. I guess that is why the values are more generic.
I still don't understand why you tag "US" while it's obviously a bunch of roads in the US. or Interstate when the road clearly crosses state lines. I think that"s more redundant than tagging "we classify this route as a regional route", even though it might cross two national borders in a few places and half the roads are outside our borders, and we don't know the current operator or provider. Peter Elderson > Op 12 jul. 2020 om 23:41 heeft Mike Thompson <miketh...@gmail.com> het > volgende geschreven: > > > > >> On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 9:53 AM Peter Elderson <pelder...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Aren't Interstate and US evident from the geographic extent as well? > Yes, that is my point, or at least it is evident with the current mapping > practice. Road routes are not tagged (at least not according to the wiki) > with network=nrn/rrn/etc. Whether a road network is national, or otherwise, > is evident for two reasons: > 1) All the routes with the same network tag will be spread across some > geographic extent. So, one could see that there are routes all across the US > with "network=US:I" and could conclude that this is a national network. > 2) By the network tag itself, for example, in the "network=US:I" tag, there > is no smaller jurisdiction indicated after US, so it must be a national > network. > > If a hiking route was tagged with network=US:FS (Forest Servies) for example, > one could see that (if that practice was generally followed), that there the > Forest Service operates hiking routes all across the US (and not anywhere > else), and thus that such a network was national in scope. And, the scope > would be evident from the network tag itself, as there is no smaller > jurisdiction following "US" in the network tag. > > In anyevent, my main point is we should be consistent and treat all route > relations the same. If it is desirable to explicitly know the scope, why not > have a "scope" tag, or leave the scope in the network tag, and have a new tag > for "specific_network" (or whatever folks want to call it). > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
