Talk:Relations/Proposed/Network

Just linking a related issue: Relations/Relations are not Categories -- Jajcuś 17:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
→ I agree with Jajcus, The knife (talk) 13:04, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I also agree, there is no need for a relation, a common tag is sufficient, e.g. network=*--Dieterdreist (talk) 13:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree too --Danstowell (talk) 16:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Rendering

If there is a rationale use of this, than it must contain render rules. ref=* does not have enough information to make a set of render rules work. I am not sure if a network relation is the way to go, but rather a network=* tag with a logical value that refere to a table of render rules. --Skippern 11:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Hiking, cycling, ...

How about hiking or cycling network who hasn't relations of type route ?

CU Sarge 11:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)