[Tagging] routes with double use hiking and bicycle

Peter Elderson pelderson at gmail.com
Sun Sep 2 19:12:51 UTC 2018

How many routes are ciclopedonale in Italy? I have seen one in 8 days of cycling though Northern Italia, and it was a way or connection rather than a marked/named  route. 

Mvg Peter Elderson

> Op 2 sep. 2018 om 16:13 heeft Jo <winfixit at gmail.com> het volgende geschreven:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20180902/37ee00b9/attachment.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list