Proposal talk:Network (2009)
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)
I marked it as depreciated, just as a reminder as many pages link here. However, there are some cycling network relations in Belgium and the Netherlands. U30303020 (talk) 22:01, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- I dislike that change, because currently this is named proposaled. I admit that I did the first change, but my intentions where going towards preventing that the people simply used this mapping style without registering that this is a proposal. (As this is a different topic, I started a new section below) U30303020 (talk) 17:28, 22 August 2018 (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)
Proposal page or Tag documentation?
Is that a real proposal? Then we should archive that and create a new tag documentation page linking to this?
If it is not a proposal, we should move it to its proper name. I am open for a discussion. U30303020 (talk) 17:28, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Ok. I created a new page called Relation:network, describing the current mapping practices. I will now archive this proposal. --U30303020 (talk) 22:43, 28 August 2018 (UTC)