Talk:Tag:network=ncn

Use of abbreviations

I assume this value ncn is understood as National Cycle Network, nothing in the documentation explicitly specifies it.
For sake of naming conventions, isn't this possible to make an appropriate refinement to make it clearer please? national_cycle would be way better value than ncn for two main reasons:

• It's more readable
• The last n isn't useful as it is contained in the network=* key.

Thanks in advance to consider this comment for other values as well icn, lcn, rcn Fanfouer (talk) 11:02, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

It's almost impossible to change this de facto value directly. In the other discussions, I suggested network:area=* (although I don't like the key name) and network:name=* to replace cycle_network=* and supplement network=*, cf ref=* and network:guid=*. ---- Kovposch (talk) 14:17, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Also consider ncn=yes and other *cn=yes, as well as network=*wn. ---- Kovposch (talk) 14:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Why is it impossible with less than 5k uses? ncn=yes is no go for the same reasons. We should look a semantics every time, whatever we intend to model. Fanfouer (talk) 14:25, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

You need to compare natural occurrence of features, not only pure numbers of instances. ~50k network=rcn and network=lcn each.

◆ Taglist ... 

LOADING TAG LIST...

---- Kovposch (talk) 14:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

We achieved hundred thousands replacements of occurrences of tower:type=*, this is not an issue, especially when we deal with millions in potential. Fanfouer (talk) 14:56, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

You retag tower:type=* to under another key, not another value. This is more useful. *=national_cycle already has 2 concepts combined in one, which could be broken up.

tower:type=* is not as important as network=* either.

---- Kovposch (talk) 17:04, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't get the point regarding keys versus values. This is all tagging and semantics.

No point to make a hierarchy between tags either to argue against a replacement. It's changes we should handle and achieve anyway.

If *=national_cycle already has two concept merged in it, what should we say about network=ncn which have three of them (national level, cycling and network)? Fanfouer (talk) 09:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Authority about network level

Also consider that there is no legitimate authority to decide which networks are National, which are Regional, etc.; this leads to confusion among contributors that may be unnecessary. And that there is a major discrepancy with other uses of the tag network, where the proper name of the network is given (e.g. New Paris Area Transit). There's not much to like in these tag values, indeed. StC (talk) 15:01, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Other features face this issue too. While network=*:national in route=road is easier because it's more about the road's administration, deciding the network=*cn is a little bit similar to the highway=* functional classification on roads.

Unfortunately, network=* in transit route=* don't correspond a "proper" name=*, only the abbreviation, treated as common name. Not even a ref=* format in route=road, where a hierarchical format is used for uniqueness and completeness.

This complexity is seen in cycle_network=*. Examples:

1. There's a mix of individual network names, place names, and levels in the sequence, making them difficult to understand. (not making guesses about parsing)
2. Only Key:cycle_network#Belgium correctly adopts the ISO standard hyphen separation for administrative subdivisions, which could slightly mitigate the challenge; Others sticked with the same colon delimiter in route=road.

---- Kovposch (talk) 17:04, 16 November 2021 (UTC)