[Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

Volker Schmidt voschix at gmail.com
Sun Aug 30 22:25:48 UTC 2020


Keep it simple, if the simple solution does not limit you.

For the mixed transportation aspect of bicycle routes, I have the gut
feeling that separate relations for each segment are overkill.
At the practical level, if you take Eurovelo1 (relation 2763798
<https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=2763798>). I am interested
in the Northern Norway part of it, because I remember containing many
ferries.
If you drill down with Waymarked trails - Cycling (both the Relation
Analyzer and OSM Route Manager are not capable of dealing with it) you will
see that this is a super relation of 9 relations.
Let's take the Norway part "EuroVelo 1 - Atlantic Coast Route - part Norway"
- relation 9523683. <https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9523683>
This is again a super relation of 4 relations.
The interesting part in this is "EuroVelo 1 - Atlantic Coast Route - part
Norway 2" - relation 9523681
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9523681>
That stretch of 670km has four ferry transfers, which in the new proposal
would create another layer  of 9 child relations.

Or another example, closer to home for me:
to get across the islands that close the lagoon of Venice you need to cross
three "mouths" (bocche). On two of them you have even the choice between
different service providers, which each would need a different relation.

Please don't do it.

The "transportation" role in the bicycle route relations should be
sufficient to cover this aspect.







On Sun, 30 Aug 2020 at 20:16, Jo <winfixit at gmail.com> wrote:

> I know that it's possible to look at the type of the child route relation,
> but I don't think it hurts to be explicit about it in the role.
>
> Regarding the 'complex' bicycle relations. I want to use superroutes for
> other purposes as well.
>
> Jo
>
> On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 7:53 PM Peter Elderson <pelderson at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Route hierarchy is regular practice.The parent relation holds child
>> relations. This is the case for many types of route,
>>
>> As far as I can see, there are two new elements:
>>
>> 1. A child relation (route section) can be of a different route type.
>> 2. Provided it has a special role
>>
>> Since the type is in the child relation, you don't need to specify that
>> in the role.
>>
>> This is valid for many route types. I would suggest not to present it as
>> a complex bicycle route, but as a way to incorporate transfer sections of
>> different types in routes of any transport type.
>>
>> Best, Peter Elderson
>>
>>
>> Op zo 30 aug. 2020 om 17:52 schreef Jo <winfixit at gmail.com>:
>>
>>> Hi Francesco,
>>>
>>> I started a proposal on the wiki:
>>>
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/More_complex_cycle_routes
>>>
>>> It will probably need to be moved to the proposal name space, but we can
>>> work on it over there before putting it up for a vote.
>>>
>>> Jo
>>>
>>> On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 3:09 PM Francesco Ansanelli <francians at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I saw your changes... LGTM.
>>>> Thanks!
>>>> It would be great to have a page to document your proposal.
>>>> Cheers
>>>> Francesco
>>>>
>>>> Il dom 30 ago 2020, 12:03 Jo <winfixit at gmail.com> ha scritto:
>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20200831/e00bab83/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list