From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Splitting at country borders?

Should the international routes be split at country borders or not? Certainly a route from Scotland to Ukraine will be one gigantic relation... For the national cycle networks in Belgium and the Netherlands here we have some routes that cross borders, and we split them up, mainly because the tagging conventions are different (what in Belgium is route "LF2", becomes just "2" in the Netherlands). My opinion is that we should leave the tagging conventions for international routes to the countries themselves (there might be more than one international networks somewhere for example, and the may need special rules). --Eimai 11:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this, but the main reason for relations is "grouping things together". By splitting up this grouping gets lost. However, for working with these relations it might be useful creating more than one and merging them near the end of the process. -- Eckhart 12:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't really think grouping will be a problem if a relation is split up into five for each country it passes. I'm thinking about metadata problems as well, like which kind of symbols are used for example, which do vary in each country (but then again, they can sometimes change inside one country as well). --Eimai 12:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, apparently symbols aren't an issue here, the EuroVelo site suggests that they're all signed with the same symbol (a number in the European stars). (I don't know how they're signed in reality since I don't live near a EV route) --Eimai 13:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I would say that each EV should get one relation ... that's what they are for, aren't they? Here in Austria the EVs also have regional numbers and names, so these ways are members of several routes (like rcn and icn). -- Skunk 08:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
My opinion is, never split the relation of a route with one name and one reference. Boarders and regions are artificial splits of a route and it is not necessary to split the relation. If you have only one simple relation without submembers, it is easy to get a gpx-file for your GPS and use it for your requirements. And the length of a route or the number of ways in the relation should be no problem. --KK-O 19:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

EuroVelos are ncn

I just changed the network of the eurovelo-relations to 'ncn', so they will be rendered on the Cycle Map. When the Cycle Map is able to display icn's we can change the network back to icn. -- Skunk 06:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't tag for the renderers, but adjust the rendering. By tagging for the renderers you're removing the incentive to change them. --Eimai 11:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
1. It's a tag that is not official by now. 2. I already talked to GravityStorm, the maintainer of the Cycle Map, he wants to implement the icn-routes, he is just currently too busy to do it. So that problem will be taken care of. -- Skunk 20:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Official or not, if everyone who's tagging routes like that uses "icn" it's official enough. The other tags ncn/rcn/lcn were also never voted on. Also, people can render their own maps, so don't just look at the cycle map to decide how you're tagging. Oh well, just remember to retag everything again to icn once it's getting supported better. --Eimai 12:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I used icn as per this article when creating the EV12 relation yesterday. It is shown in Cycle_routes#Relations but I don't know how long it has been there. EdLoach 15:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

EV12 North Sea Route and NCN NR1

The EV12 follows the NCN National Route 1 in the UK (though I have never seen an actual "EV12" signpost). The NR1 route (see) has been split into 3 relations because it's massive. How can it be included in EV12? Is it possible to have a relation inside another relation? Or will it be necessary to add all of the ways manually? ChrisB 11:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

ref format

This page recommends ref=EV5 on the route relation, even though "EV" doesn't appear on the standard route marker. This kind of prefix is common with the ref=* key on ways, where the prefix is needed for disambiguation. But on route relations, the network=* and cycle_network=* keys are already sufficient for disambiguation. A data consumer should be using the cycle_network=EuroVelo tag to determine that the bare route number 5 should be formatted as "EV5" when presented to the user in plain text but that a graphical shield should contain only the numeral "5". As it is, data consumers have to parse the ref=* tag in a different manner depending on the cycle_network=* tag, which somewhat defeats the purpose of storing route numbers in route relations. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 16:59, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

In long sections of the EV they aren't signposted - how to deal with it?

At least in Germany there are long sections of the EV-Routes not signposted at all (e.g. the complete EV3). Usually such routes are not included in OSM. I'd like to state on this page that here is made an exception to that rule. Usually the EV routes lead along existing national routes. I stumbled over a divergence of a national route (D7, relation 1988829 and the "Developed" GPX-File from the [eurovelo-Website]( that leads through a pedestrians zone where cycling is not allowed. In such cases I'd assume that this is a error (or just missing update) in the GPX-File.

I'd recommend to adjust the EV3-Relation to the corresponding national route D7 to avoid the suggestion of unusable parts in a relation marked as route=bicycle (instead e.g. proposed:route=bicycle, where one could expect parts that aren't really usable). Otherwise it wouldn't be justified to make an exception to the rule of not including unmarked routes in OSM for the EV-routes.

I think such a recommendation could be placed here on the wiki page. --Segubi (talk) 16:50, 12 October 2023 (UTC)