[Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

Peter Elderson pelderson at gmail.com
Fri Jun 19 12:46:17 UTC 2020

the talk page section I wrote about a week ago, for future consideration.

Fr gr Peter Elderson

Op vr 19 jun. 2020 om 14:33 schreef Peter Elderson <pelderson at gmail.com>:

> I think a bicycle route can not declare a rail route to be bicycle=yes. I
> think you should verify that the train is bicycle=yes before you call it a
> transfer. If it isn't, you can't declare it to be a part of your waymarked
> bicycle route, can you?
> Apart from that, if a router uses the bicycle route relation, it should
> alway check the ways themselves for access, no matter what the route
> relation says.
> Fr gr Peter Elderson
> Op vr 19 jun. 2020 om 14:02 schreef Francesco Ansanelli <
> francians at gmail.com>:
>> Dear Volker and Peter,
>> I agree with you both...
>> The question was born for a bike+train (funicular actually), but it can
>> be implemented in a generic way to fix similar cases.
>> Insead of interrupting the relation on the railway, we can put the other
>> public transport one as a member with a "transfer" role.
>> Of course, I assume the transfer relation will have 1 or 2 common points
>> with our trip (stops):
>> let's say a train starts from station A, but we take it at station B with
>> our bike, we get off at station C, but the last station will be Z.
>> I don't think this could be an issue, but should be considered for any
>> future implementation.
>> Transfer relations should also consider the parent's relation type (ex.
>> route=bicycle, implies bicycle=yes on the train route).
>> What do you think?
>> Francesco
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20200619/1d74af72/attachment.htm>

More information about the Tagging mailing list