[Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

[Jo]

I was in a hurry to go and eat and forgot to say this:

In the Italian station, I added a footway through the station building and
across the rails. That's not correct, of course. This should be improved
with more detail. Is there a tunnel to cross the railway? A bridge? Do
people have to risk it at an unsupervised level_crossing?

If there is a tunnel or a bridge, most likely there is also a part with
stairs.

Possibly the train always arrives near the station building and never on
the southern track as it is mapped now?

I now added a role transfer in the superroute relation. Maybe a role
transfer_on_foot, transfer_by_train, transfer_by_ferry,
transfer_by_funicular would be more descriptive? For this we would need to
create a proposal, but at the moment I'm mostly interested in your
opinions. Creating a proposal and following up on it is a lot of work. I'm
not sure if I have the stamina for it. But anyone can do it, so if you feel
like it, go ahead.

Jo

On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 12:39 PM Jo <winfixit at gmail.com> wrote:

> I uploaded my way to solve this:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11560387
>
> Polyglot
>
> On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 12:03 PM Jo <winfixit at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Francesco,
>>
>> I will create the superroute and route relations as an example. If you
>> don't like the solution, feel free to remove those relations again
>> afterwards. I will only fix a small error in the original relation, but
>> keep it for now, so both solutions can be analysed next to each other.
>>
>> I don't really like the idea of a role 'transfer' on all those railway
>> ways in a single route relation. In the case of your example, there is only
>> a single railway, but in theory there could be one for each direction of
>> travel of the train. So if you want to describe that in the route relation,
>> you would need role forward/backward in the route relation, which cannot be
>> combined with role transfer.
>>
>> Jo
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 11:24 AM Francesco Ansanelli <francians at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Polyglot,
>>>
>>> it sounds good to me. But what roles do you suggest for such superroute?
>>> Many thanks
>>> Francesco
>>>
>>> Il giorno dom 30 ago 2020 alle ore 11:00 Jo <winfixit at gmail.com> ha
>>> scritto:
>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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/20200830/3722aee9/attachment.htm>