[OSM-talk-be] Fietsknooppunten, bicycle nodes "Roundabouts and around squares"

[Marc Gemis]

Thanks,

I should have read "the manual" :-)
Hope the Rivierenland network is almost error free now.

regards

m

On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 9:06 PM, <marc at vmarc.be> wrote:

> Marc,
>
>  On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 1:01 PM, Marc Gemis <marc.gemis at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I have a question about : http://osma.vmarc.be/en/route/1758816 [2]
>>>> The problem
>>>> here is a "virtual path" in a pedestrian area tagged as
>>>> route='bicycle", but
>>>> used in a walking/hiking/foot route.
>>>> Anything I can do to solve the problem without "tagging for the
>>>> QA-tool" ?
>>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 1:36 PM, Andre Engels <andreengels at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Put foot=yes on the virtual path?
>>>
>>
>> On 2015-05-19 13:38, Marc Gemis wrote:
>>
>> that's what I did, but I wonder whether Marc takes that into account for
>> his QA tool
>>
>
> Yes, foot=yes should make the warning go away. The logic of the analyzer
> is as
> described at http://osma.vmarc.be/en/glossary#accessible, and quoted here:
>
>  Currently the validation rule dictates that one of the following is true
>> for each
>> way in the route relation for the route to be considered "accessible":
>>
>>  - The way has a value for tag "highway".
>>  - The way has tag "route" with value "ferry".
>>  - The way in the bicycle network has tag "bicycle" with value "yes".
>>  - The way in the hiking network has tag "foot" with value "yes".
>>
>
> The text above is followed by:
>
>  These rules should probably be further refined.
>>
>
> Let me know if you have any ideas to improve these rules.
>
> Regards,
> Marc
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-be/attachments/20150519/5c5d1df0/attachment.htm>