[Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

Peter Elderson pelderson at gmail.com
Thu Jun 18 21:08:08 UTC 2020


This issue is the same for routes for other modes of transport, especially
hiking.I know a hiking route using a bus transfer through a tunnel. I know
one in Switzerland using a train through a tunnel but only in winter. I
know one using a bus transfer for all cycling and hiking routes over a 30
Km long dyke. And lots of ferries over rivers and lakes.
I know canoe routes with foot sections (portage).

I would keep the solution as generic and as simple as possible.

As it happens, a basic functional role set has recently been approved for
such routes.It assigns a rol to approaches, excursions, alternatives and
connections between routes.

I was thinking about adding a role "transfer", to be assigned to a member
relation. The relation that gets the role "transfer" is a route relation of
a different transport mode. It's all the information you need, so there is
no need for transport mode specific roles.

There is one complication to be considered: the different type of roles
cannot be combined in one relation. Especially for cycling, a particular
way of the route could have the forward|backward role, belong to an
alternative|approach|excursion|connection, and belong to a transfer
section, all at the same time.
A relation member cannot have the forward|backward role, but it could be
both transfer and one of the approved basic role set.

This complication can always be solved within a relation hierarchy, though.

Best,  Peter Elderson


Op do 18 jun. 2020 om 21:58 schreef Volker Schmidt <voschix at gmail.com>:

> I know several bicycle route segments on water: ferryboat, waterbus,
> private on-demand boat.
> On rail: One route contained a normal rail segment.
> By Bus: scheduled buses on road segments with heavy traffic.
> We should consider these other means as well in any proposal.
> :
>
> On Thu, 18 Jun 2020, 20:32 Francesco Ansanelli, <francians at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I discussed with local mappers about the need of a role "take_train" or
>> "public_transport" to fix bicycle routes...
>> Would anybody be so kind to make a proposal about this post?
>>
>> Many thanks
>> Cheers
>> Francesco
>>
>> Il giorno lun 16 dic 2019 alle ore 13:49 Francesco Ansanelli <
>> francians at gmail.com> ha scritto:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Il lun 16 dic 2019, 10:56 Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com> ha scritto:
>>>
>>>> On 16/12/19 20:21, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Am Mo., 16. Dez. 2019 um 10:02 Uhr schrieb Volker Schmidt <
>>>> voschix at gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> Can we come back to talking about a solution.
>>>>> Maybe an appropriate new role value could be a solution:
>>>>> role=take_train on the corresponding train section in the bicycle route,
>>>>> for example.
>>>>> However, this would provide an easy way to add train ride details.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I would add the train route relation as member, rather than the
>>>> individual railway ways.
>>>>
>>>> If the entire train route is used then ok. But if only a section is
>>>> used then I think the relevant ways only should be included.
>>>>
>>>> If a simple dataconsumer is not aware, it would should a hole in the
>>>> bicycle relation (what IMHO is a good way to show that there is something
>>>> special, in particular that you cannot simply ride your bike there), while
>>>> a data consumer who specifically understands the situation could give
>>>> specific directions. I agree a specific role also seems reasonable (could
>>>> be extended to ferries, trams, aerialways, etc.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> role=take_train would not work for ferries, buses, canoes etc.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think role=transport could work .. provided the way identifies what
>>>> form of transport is used ... that could be a problem for bus routes?
>>>>
>>>> role=transport_train/transport_bus???
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I agree with the 'transport' name, it's the same I was thinking too...
>>> Also 'transport_relation' could be fine.
>>> Since you are adding a relation as segment you will get the type of
>>> relation from it.
>>> At this point I'd remove all information from the rail, do a relation
>>> ptv2 and add that to my route.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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/20200618/d93eedf6/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list