Sounds to me that the scheme is creating a problem rather than solving it... requiring a lot of prior knowledge and tables to code, and expert knowledge and tables to decode. If anything, I would want to make it simpler, not more complicated. Anyone who wants more consistency, please map all Dutch recreational routes onto the new consistent scheme without breaking current rendering and processing, if you can do it, let's talk again!
Mvg Peter Elderson Op 13 jul. 2020 om 00:18 heeft Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org> het volgende geschreven: Disambiguation. US:FS:Hood and US:FS:Ozark are two different national forest service networks with entirely different numbering schemes. Plus network=CA by itself would be Canada, not California, which is US:CA... On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 5:07 PM Peter Elderson <pelder...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
