<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Normal OSM access is assumed to be
access=yes, where some access is restricted then in OSM it should
be marked *=no. <br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">So where a train forbids bicycle
transport then bicycle=no should be applied or some local default
of bicycle=no on trains be documented. <br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Locally to me some trains require the
bicycle to be boxed, but not all trains require this. None of this
to my knowledge is OSM tagged here, many train routes have not
been mapped in OSM so this detail is of a much lower priority. <br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 19/6/20 10:33 pm, Peter Elderson
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAKf=P+s57iRVwfe+i-ho=B3zcmfJo=ewGvn+ZLd5O7MpDxJHeg@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">I think a bicycle route can not declare a rail
route to be bicycle=yes. I think you should verify that the
train is bicycle=yes before you call it a transfer. If it isn't,
you can't declare it to be a part of your waymarked bicycle
route, can you?
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Apart from that, if a router uses the bicycle route
relation, it should alway check the ways themselves for
access, no matter what the route relation says.<br>
<div><br clear="all">
<div>
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"
data-smartmail="gmail_signature">Fr gr Peter Elderson</div>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Op vr 19 jun. 2020 om 14:02
schreef Francesco Ansanelli <<a
href="mailto:francians@gmail.com" moz-do-not-send="true">francians@gmail.com</a>>:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">Dear Volker and Peter,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I agree with you both...</div>
<div>The question was born for a bike+train (funicular
actually), but it can be implemented in a generic way to
fix similar cases.</div>
<div>Insead of interrupting the relation on the railway, we
can put the other public transport one as a member with a
"transfer" role.</div>
<div>Of course, I assume the transfer relation will have 1
or 2 common points with our trip (stops):</div>
<div>let's say a train starts from station A, but we take it
at station B with our bike, we get off at station C, but
the last station will be Z.</div>
<div>I don't think this could be an issue, but should be
considered for any future implementation.</div>
<div>Transfer relations should also consider the parent's
relation type (ex. route=bicycle, implies bicycle=yes on
the train route).</div>
<div>What do you think?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Francesco</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Tagging mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>