<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto">Agreed, I too see no advantage of putting two routes for different transports in a master route for this purpose. If two or more routes are truly the same but for the route= and network= values, the semicolon separated list is fine. In Nederland, I have yet to see such routes. <div><br></div><div>Many bicycle routes have the backward-forward thing, which makes little sense for other modes. In other cases the ways may look the same, but e.g the bicycle uses the bicycle=lane attribute and the hiking route uses the foot=use_sidepath attribute of the way. In my view, that's a difference in route.<br><br><div dir="ltr">Peter Elderson</div><div dir="ltr"><br><blockquote type="cite">Op 14 aug. 2021 om 21:23 heeft Volker Schmidt <voschix@gmail.com> het volgende geschreven:<br><br></blockquote></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="auto">I see it from the pure manpower point of view. If a foot-cycle route has the same members and the same ref it is less work to have only one relation with two route values (semicolon separated) than two relations with the same members. I see no advantage in a super-route arrangement.<div dir="auto"><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, 14 Aug 2021, 21:02 Kevin Kenny, <<a href="mailto:kevin.b.kenny@gmail.com">kevin.b.kenny@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, Aug 14, 2021 at 2:27 PM Brian M. Sperlongano <<a href="mailto:zelonewolf@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">zelonewolf@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<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"><div dir="ltr">On Sat, Aug 14, 2021 at 2:13 PM Kevin Kenny <<a href="mailto:kevin.b.kenny@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">kevin.b.kenny@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><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"><div dir="ltr">The trail winds up having a couple of places that route through city streets because the railbed was unusable for one reason or another. The pedestrian route takes a short path on the sidewalk because it doesn't need to respect the direction of a one-way street. The cycling route uses that path (on the road rather than the sidewalk) in the forward direction, but has to detour a few blocks in the reverse direction to follow the traffic law. <br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I would argue in this case that the on-the-ground-reality is that there are <i>actually two separate routes</i>, which you have correctly modeled as such, rather than duplications for different modes of travel.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>There are other commenters in the thread who believe strongly that since the route has one name, one set of signage over the overwhelming majority of its length, one operator, and so on, that it must be a single object in OSM. I'm simply arguing that as far as I can see, a case like this is passing the data model past its limits. Maybe a superroute could unify the foot and cycle routes? I don't know, and I really don't care all that much, because I care more whether the software that consumes the data will understand the situation exists in the field than whether a Platonist would say that the foot and cycle routes are one entity or two. </div></div><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div dir="ltr">73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin</div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Tagging mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
<span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>Tagging mailing list</span><br><span>Tagging@openstreetmap.org</span><br><span>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</span><br></div></blockquote></div></body></html>