[Tagging] routes with double use hiking and bicycle

Jo winfixit at gmail.com
Sun Sep 2 14:13:28 UTC 2018


My reaction was to how I read your message, it seemed like you would create
2 route_master relations and use those as members in a route relation.

For foot and bicycle relations it is possible to use sub relations for
parts in common between multiple routes, or if one route is designated
separately but is part of a 'superroute', but if I understood correctly for
that case both would be route relations.

That's not what this case is about is about though.

If the renderers and routers can cope with it, simply use a semicolon
between the tags, in case the members are exactly the same. If not, ask
them to update their software logic. In that case one route relation for
multiple 'modes of transport' suffices and we can keep things simple.

Polyglot



Op zo 2 sep. 2018 om 15:05 schreef Paul Allen <pla16021 at gmail.com>:

> On Sun, Sep 2, 2018 at 1:53 PM, Jo <winfixit at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> In public transport:
>>
>
> Walking and cycling routes are not public transport.  Nevertheless
> (according to the wiki) route masters can be used
> with them.
>
> 1 (one) route_master relation for the line
>>
>> 1 or more (typically 2) route relations for the variations in itinerary.
>>
>
> I don't understand what point you're trying to make.  Or how those
> sentences contradict the idea of using a route
> master to cope with the variations of walking and cycling.
> Unconventional, yes, but you're the person who invented
> the reverse role for routes, so you don't let conventions bind you.  If
> the walking and cycling route weren't exactly
> identical (as is often the case) but largely corresponded, would a route
> master be appropriate then?  If not, why
> not?  It's a route from A to B with variants.
>
> It was just a thought, anyway.  As I said, I didn't think through all the
> ramifications.  But nothing you've said so far
> convinces me the idea is wrong.
>
> --
> Paul
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20180902/04a3c1ac/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list