[Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

Warin 61sundowner at gmail.com
Fri Jun 19 23:57:03 UTC 2020

Normal OSM access is assumed to be access=yes, where some access is 
restricted then in OSM it should be marked *=no.

So where a train forbids bicycle transport then bicycle=no should be 
applied or some local default of bicycle=no on trains be documented.

Locally to me some trains require the bicycle to be boxed, but not all 
trains require this. None of this to my knowledge is OSM tagged here, 
many train routes have not been mapped in OSM so this detail is of a 
much lower priority.

On 19/6/20 10:33 pm, Peter Elderson wrote:
> 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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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/20200620/40223162/attachment.htm>

More information about the Tagging mailing list