Re: Knotenpunktnetzwerke

JochenB wrote:

Meines Erachtens ist die Einführung von 'rwn_name=*' unnötig und 'rwn_ref=o' eine sehr unglückliche Anwendung.

(Sorry to respond in English, mein Deutsch reicht nicht)

I agree withe the rwn_ref observation, and I understand the rwn_name observation. Explanation:

This is the temporary setup to make the current setup work with the universal node network planner Knooppuntnet Planner. See https://knooppuntnet.nl/nl/map/hiking and search/pan/zoom to south-east of Toulouse, give it a try!

The bigger picture is this:
I want to get rid of this trick as soon as possible. To do that, I need an approved tagging scheme, or else the data users will not make the necesasary changes. I have some experience in getting consensus in a relatively unknown field - it's impossible without a working model.
In the meantime, mappers want to move on.
This tempory scheme allows mappers to move on and enter the data, and start using the current applications. It does not break anything, and it allows data_entry in a way that can be easily reused /retagged.

Now to be more concrete:

The rwn_ref (r*n_ref) was designed for max 2 characters, numbers only. It was adapted to max 3: one letter two numbers, because operators started to use that. We have tried longer refs in the Schlossberg test, you can see the result in WMT here on the second picture: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pro … e_networks
Knooppuntnet and OsmAnd also did not display this well. Other applications, I dont know, but it's clear this is not the solution.

As for the choice of o when there is no r*n_ref: it's a visual choice. o for naught. It's been used and documented: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag … 5#Examples

The o-o ref is then necessary to make Knooppuntnet Planner work. As it heappens, it resembles a node-node connection. In WMT it looks like this: https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#rou … 088!1.4901 (hope this works...)
Notice how the guidposts near the network nodes show the name when zooming in. You can even click there and get the guidepost information.

While you are on the page, you might take a look at the issues and possible solutions...

This does not mean it should remain that way - but I think it is acceptable as a model and for data entry until the "dummy" rwn_ref and route ref can be eliminated. I have already asked Knooppuntnet if they will accommodate rwn_name instead of rwn_ref (what it would take to add this to their program).