Sorry to do this in English, but my German is even worse!
In Nederland, network=rwn and rcn have been (ab)used to accommodate walking node networks and cycling node networks. We would like to repair this, by proposing an alternative way to indicate that routes belong to a node network. I know this is discussed in the German forum as well.
The Dutch have discussed this at length. Bottom line we propose simply to
add a tag **network_type=node_network **to the route relations of the node
Nodes do not need this tag, the fact that they have the xxn_ref tag says it
This allows node networks to be defined for all modes of transportation and
all geographical scopes. The setup can handle other network_types should
they arise; other modes of transportation; and other geographical scopes if
necessary (so intercontinental drone hub_networks, no problem!)
Node network checking-site knooppuntnet.be/knooppuntnet.nl (the site
formerly known as vmarc.be, i.e. user vmarc) has indicated it is an
easy-to-implement solution and it would allow the site to facilitate german node networks as well.
From statements of waymarkedtrails we understand that they can work with this too; we have asked them (on github) to confirm this.
We think maybe the network relation with all the routes and nodes in it is
no longer necessary. That is in the current system the main
pain-in-the-butt for node network maintenance, and nobody really used it.
Existing base does not need retagging, just add the extra tag to the individual node
route relations. In Nederland this can be done quick and easy because we
have no regional linear routes defined: all rwn routes are node_network
In Germany I think there is a mix of linear and node rwn routes, so
it’s a project but I think not a large or difficult one. I would be glad to help out if necessary. Maybe this proposal even helps in separating rXn node routes from "real " rXn routes.
Adding the extra tag changes nothing for the current rendering, so existing
data users can keep their system in place while developing handling of the
new system, then changeover at their own time. If they don’t, nothing changes for them.
I would like to hear your questions and comments on this proposal. We have considered a lot of arguments to get to this simple result, but please, surprise me with things we haven’t thought of!
I will share this with the Belgian (Flemish) community as well. Their situation is about the same as in Nederland.
The idea is to get to one common proposal (DE+BE+NL), then present this to the tagging list as the way we want to normalise/undo the exception we created to accommodate the rising node network system in a more generic way.
Fr gr Peter Elderson