Oh man, what did I do… Me and my “good” English. Saint Bing help me…
I challenged this a bit, because I have now realized that junction networks have a completely different structure than other hiking or cycling path signs. Junction networks are not really comparable with all other hiking or cycling trails…
This should also be better reflected in the tagging and subsequently in the rendering.
Personally, I am very interested in a common solution! I really like that.
As a result, it must be a question of capturing such junction networks in a clean, unambiguous and separate way and making them questionable!
I myself have a brief overview of the situation in the federal state of Brandenburg here in Germany. Here, these junction networks are only built for the bicycle. Therefore, I had the idea to use network=cnn (=cyclenodenetwork) for such networks instead of network=rcn|lcn, which could be extended to network=wnn (walkingnodenetwork).
But I like the idea of “simple” network_type=node_network even more. This does not change the existing data. Above all, existing evaluation tools such as https://knooppuntnet.nl/en/networks/de/rcn do not need to be fundamentally touched. The new network_type=node_network property then ensures that such networks can be separated cleanly from everything else.
We should now consider…
Here, for example, we have pure thematic cycling routes and more and more (bicycle) junction networks. Both always use the same infrastructure. At a junction you can find a themed bike path guide and a hint to the next junction or just a hint to the next junction.
In my opinion, this is also the reason why separate registrations are taking place here and should be the case.
The question now is which objects network_type=node_network must be…
Nodes?
The relationship that summarizes the path relations with the nodes?
Subrelations between the nodes?
To everything?
The bottom line is to capture the relation that summarizes everything as a superroute and set network_type=node_network to the nodes and subrelations that summarize each node.
Example:
the relation https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8801845 get additional network_type=node_network + (relation-type) type=superroute
The nodes of the network https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/243202864 get additional network_type=node_network and
the relations between the nodes https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9691317 get additional network_type=node_network
In addition to network=rcn, this can then be indentified as a (regional) bicycle junction network.
supplementary opinions? I think it should work.
Greetings from the Spreewald,
Sven