[Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

Jo winfixit at gmail.com
Sun Aug 30 08:58:05 UTC 2020


How would you feel about mapping it with a superroute relation?

The superroute would then contain 3 route relations.

1 for the first part by bicycle
1 for the middle part by train
1 for the last part by bicycle

If we give the train part a different role in the superroute, we can make
it such that the continuity line in JOSM is still drawn.

This solution might also work to indicate that certain parts of a bicycle
route need to be done on foot. Although creating separate route relations
for such short stretches may feel like overkill.

The other 'interruption' of a bicycle route I can think of, is where a
ferry needs to be taken. In theory this could also be a funicular. In
Antwerpen there is a special bus service that takes cyclists through a
tunnel under river Schelde (for commuters, where a ferry was abolished,
it's unlikely we'll create a route relation for this, but not
impossible/unthinkable).

In JOSM PT_Assistant there will soon be a convenience button to extract
route relations from route or superroute relations, to make a conversion
from route to superroute+route relations easier to do.

Polyglot

On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 9:59 AM Francesco Ansanelli <francians at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hello,
>
> a new example that could benefit of this proposal:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/10605853
>
> Can someone please go ahead and make a proposal?
>
> Many thanks
> Best regards
> Francesco
>
> Il mer 24 giu 2020, 23:25 Peter Elderson <pelderson at gmail.com> ha scritto:
>
>> For the record, I think a transfer role is a generic solution  for the
>> issue raised here, applicable to the cable car transfer and other types of
>> transfer in routes, but I will not propose a new role value any time soon.
>>
>> Anyone who wants to do it has my support, though.
>>
>> Vr gr Peter Elderson
>>
>>
>> Op za 20 jun. 2020 om 09:13 schreef Martin Koppenhoefer <
>> dieterdreist at gmail.com>:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> sent from a phone
>>>
>>> > On 20. Jun 2020, at 01:58, Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Normal OSM access is assumed to be access=yes, where some access is
>>> restricted then in OSM it should be marked *=no.
>>>
>>>
>>> for roads access=yes is assumed, it is not necessarily the default for
>>> all kind of features.
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers Martin
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20200830/c52d5f8b/attachment.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list