[Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

Peter Elderson pelderson at gmail.com
Sun Aug 30 11:25:31 UTC 2020


To clarify: the transfer role could be added to the role value list:

*None* or main The role value for the main section(s) of a signposted or in
any way waymarked route.
alternative A signposted or otherwise waymarked alternative branching off
then rejoining the main route at a significantly different point. The
alternative is used instead of a section of the main route.
excursion A signposted or otherwise waymarked side track which rejoins the
main track at or close to the same point where it left, e.g. to visit a
place of interest. The excursion is an optional addition to the main route.
approach Signposted or otherwise waymarked access route to or from
transport infrastructure e.g. parking, train station, bus station, cable
car. An approach is used in addition to the main route.
connection Signposted or otherwise waymarked link route from one
recreational route to another recreational route and vice versa. A
connection is used to switch from one route to another. Note that an
approach might act as a connection, e.g. when it ends/begins at a major
train station where other routes also pass through. In that case, use the
role approach.

Given this definition, the connection should appear in both routes involved.
*| transfer | Route section where a different mode of transport is
necessary, e.g. cable car transfer in a hikingh trail, train transfer in a
bicycle route, bus transfer through a tunnel. A transfer section is an
integral part of the route. |*

Best, Peter Elderson

Op zo 30 aug. 2020 om 12:47 schreef Peter Elderson <pelderson at gmail.com>:

> True. In that case, a transfer relation in a superroute is necessary. Like
> all the other roles: do not combine these roles on ways with with
> forward/backward, use a relation instead.
>
> Vr gr Peter Elderson
>
>
> Op zo 30 aug. 2020 om 12:06 schreef Jo <winfixit at gmail.com>:
>
>> 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
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/ca700b1b/attachment.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list