Talk:Key:network:type

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

network:type=destination_network

In the German forum we were thinking about how to tag a network which is similar to a node network, but where the guideposts have names instead of numbers, like the Schwarzwaldverein network in the Black Forest, Germany. User streckenkundler came up with the tag 'network:type=destination_network' which sounds good to me. Are there any better ideas or votes against? --Doktorpixel14 (talk) 12:02, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Is the only difference that the nodes have names? Does every node have a name? Do all nodes point to the adjacent nodes? Is every junction of the node network routes a named node? Can you describe long routes as a chain of node names? Are the node2node routes bidirectionally waymarked? If all is the same except that node names are used instead of node numbers, I think it;s simply a node_netowrk.--Peter Elderson (talk) 17:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
I've looked again at the example. There is no node name in the signpost, correct? It's a fingerpost with fingers pointing at the roads to use for near and far destinations, and for signed/waymarked routes with symbols. I have got to ask: why is this a network? Who or what will make use of the information? What should be rendered, (how) are navigators/routers supposed to handle it, (how) are planner routers supposed to hande this?
Maybe you just need to add the direction information to the guideposts, like suggested here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:information%3Dguidepost
Talking about the Schwarzwaldverein network all your mentioned questions apply. Compare the guideposts Katzensteiner Hof with Hilsenberg for example, the closest directions at the top are always the next guidepost. A few mappers (including me) have already mapped some parts of the network which you can find on Waymarked Trails with yellow and blue diamonds. It really works exactly the same as node networks, but the consensus in the German forum was more that node networks have to be connected with node numbers and not names. That's why we thought about a different tag. --Doktorpixel14 (talk) 17:35, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
I see, I agree, thanks for the explanation and the examples. The symbol is the network, the middle shield gives the node name, and the number below that is the height above sea. The first destination on each finger is the next node, and you get the nodes after that for free including the distances. Or at least, the next node is one of the indicated destinations. Indeed, it is a regular node_network only with unique names instead of numbers.
What happens on waymarkedtrails if you just make it a regular node network by tagging all the nodes and route relations with network:type=node_network, just without the lwn_ref=* node numbers and with the node name in name=*? For testing, just leave the node2node routes without ref or name. There is aso no need for a network relation.
Knooppuntnet will probably show lots of "facts" but you can ignore that for now. In a few weeks a new version of Knooppuntnet will be released with a lot of improvements, and if necessary new developments will be accommodated. A node planner comes with the new release, it will handle the network without node refs, but the output (chain of node numbers) will be useless.... but a new output type is not a big deal. E.g. we have a variant node network which uses colours instead of numbers to point the hiker to the next node, so the colour was simply added to the output. Printing a name with every node is not that big a deal! It can be generic: if there is a name, its printed, if there is no name, not.
Nobody will stop you from adding another network:type, but I think a slight adaptation of the regular node network tagging is enough!
--Peter Elderson (talk) 19:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Placed Github issue https://github.com/vmarc/knooppuntnet/issues/102 for Knooppuntnet (vmarc), for simply supporting names in rwn_ref. --Peter Elderson (talk) 10:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
vmarc has looked at the network. In principle, it's a node network. Names instead of numbers can be handled by the Planner at the display level, and by the Analyser at the validations level. But you wuld have to put the node network tags on the logical junction node, i.e. the intersection of the ways. A node network in OSM is a logical thing, not a physical thing. This does not conflict with the mapping of the guideposts as features of their own, at the exact location.
Is it an option to test this on say 5 of your junctions? I can do that without altering anything to the current objects and tagging, then show you the results.
--Peter Elderson (talk) 14:26, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, sure, go ahead. I contacted a few other mappers who already mapped parts of the SWV network and they're generally supporting network:type=node_network --Doktorpixel14 (talk) 19:34, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
I have created a small network with named nodes. See https://experimental.knooppuntnet.nl/en/map/hiking#4vnb9e-4mmg05-4mmfut-6w1soh where I planned a route over this network. Control-Click on a node or route wll take you to Knooppuntnet Analysis where you can see the details of the tagging. Waymarkedtrails also displays names instead of numbers: https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#routelist?ids=11168677,11168687,11479534&map=15!48.6077!8.1559
--Peter Elderson (talk) 13:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)