Hi Andy, thanks for your reply.
You are right the route is two letters Y joined together. It might look odd but Imo this is a combination of 3 factors : 1) The elaborate cycle infra structure in The Netherlands. For our local hero have a look at this blog : http://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/ The two branches of the top Y are two completely separate bicycle tracks along a motorway. Same for the two branches of the lower Y. The piece you highlighted and has no attached role is an old village road with no separate bicycle tracks. The cycle route uses this piece both to travel from 23 to 62 as well as to travel from 62 to 23 2) The actual route made by the people who maintain them. Which is apparent from the little whight/green cycle node signs. The little piece with the backward role is not a oneway road. It connects the residential road with the roundabout. You could travel in the other direction then the direction in which the road was drawn. Meaning you won't get trouble with the police. But the people who maintain the network decided that you should only use that piece opposite to the direction it was drawn. 3) In which case Osm wants the role to be "backward" or I could change the direction of drawing of that piece of road to stop JOSM from cying "wolf" But that is not recommended and feels like tagging for the renderer. If you zoom a bit further on your own link of the relation than you will see that the top Y ends in two rcn_ref=23 and the lower Y ends in two rcn_ref=62 . Both rcn_ref=23 and rcn_ref=62 are just on the left and right side of the road. The physical situation for both is a motorway with two completely separate bicyle tracks. So the two nodes rcn_ref=62 are maybe 20 meters apart. Same for rcn_ref=23. In that case the recommende solution is two nodes with the same number in stead of painstakingly splitting up to connect the cycletrack for 23-62 with the cycle track for 62-23 So, I really don't see anything wrong. The relation is continuous now. It was not before. This actually is the reason I edited it. I must have travalled this route by bike a few hundred times at least, so I know the situation. JOSM validation can generate a "not continuous error" but it nolonger does so. The "wrong role" error in the JOSM validator can be selected while you have the relation editor open, but nothing is highligted there. On the map the whole relation is highligted. Not very helpfull :( Thanks for the links and suggestions I posted my question on gmane.comp.gis.openstreetmap.josm.devel , on gmane.comp.gis.openstreetmap.user and on https://help.openstreetmap.org/ Thanks again Gys From: SomeoneElse [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, May 5, 2014 10:01 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [OSM-newbies] Wrong Error report in JOSM (?) Gys de Jongh wrote: ... Especially so when infact the error report is the only thing that's wrong :( Here is one of many examples : network=rcn note=23-62 route=bicycle type=route Relation ID=1263377 JOSM 7000 Validation : Role forward unknown Role backward unknown JOSM does seem to have a habit of "crying wolf" more often now than it used to - and if it's not explaining why it doesn't like forward/backward on cycle route relations, then arguably that's a bug in JOSM since it hasn't communicated the problem to you (or me). I'm not sure how many people with in-depth knowledge of JOSM's validation rules follow this list - but if you don't get an answer here you might try asking on the help site: https://help.openstreetmap.org/ or perhaps even the JOSM-dev list: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/josm-dev However, looking at the relation one thing does strike me as odd - it's essentially two letter "Y"s joined together http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1263377#map=17/51.66097/5.28077 <http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1263377#map=17/51.66097/5.28077&layer s=CN> &layers=CN All way members have got forward or backward on them, apart from the bit in the middle <http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/7075208#map=17/51.66096/5.27969&layers=CN> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/7075208#map=17/51.66096/5.27969&layers=CN This means that, despite what ra.osmsurround.org says, it's not actually contiguous. This may be deliberate, since it's part of a larger relation (and it doesn't seem to be what JOSM's complaining about), but I thought tha I'd better mention it just in case. Cheers, Andy
_______________________________________________ newbies mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/newbies
