Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

Volker Schmidt : > The double role issue, if it occurs, is there in either case, separate > relation or role in the bicycle route relation. > If a way or a chain of ways in a route relation has no forward/backward role, you can assign it a transfer/transport role.Easy for e.g. ferries operating

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

The double role issue, if it occurs, is there in either case, separate relation or role in the bicycle route relation. Regarding travel details of ferry/rail/bus sections within bicycle routes: This information, if available, should go on the the ferry/rail/bus route relations, as these means of

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

Jo: > I added that it's not needed for ferries in the proposal on the wiki. It's > alright if we have more than 1 way to do it and leave it up to the mapper > to decide whether to map as a single route relation or split them and use a > superroute relation. > Wouldn't this apply to other

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

I added that it's not needed for ferries in the proposal on the wiki. It's alright if we have more than 1 way to do it and leave it up to the mapper to decide whether to map as a single route relation or split them and use a superroute relation. If I start doing a bicycle tour, I want to know in

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

'transport' role, 'transportation' role ... is this in use and documented somewhere? In bicycle routes, when the ways are different for the two directions, forward and backward roles apply to the ways in the relation. If a transfer/transport/transportation is to be applied as well, how would you

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

We've been doing it for years for ferries, so in that case I agree that it's somewhat overkill. In the case of transferring to a train or bus, I don't think it's overkill to be explicit about it though. It seems really odd to me to have railway ways or highway ways with bicycle=no|use_sidepath as

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

On 31/8/20 8:25 am, Volker Schmidt wrote: Keep it simple, if the simple solution does not limit you. Agreed. I see no reason why a way as a member of a simple route relation could not have the role 'transport'. ___ Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

Keep it simple, if the simple solution does not limit you. For the mixed transportation aspect of bicycle routes, I have the gut feeling that separate relations for each segment are overkill. At the practical level, if you take Eurovelo1 (relation 2763798

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

I know that it's possible to look at the type of the child route relation, but I don't think it hurts to be explicit about it in the role. Regarding the 'complex' bicycle relations. I want to use superroutes for other purposes as well. Jo On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 7:53 PM Peter Elderson wrote:

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

Route hierarchy is regular practice.The parent relation holds child relations. This is the case for many types of route, As far as I can see, there are two new elements: 1. A child relation (route section) can be of a different route type. 2. Provided it has a special role Since the type is in

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

Hi Francesco, I started a proposal on the wiki: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/More_complex_cycle_routes It will probably need to be moved to the proposal name space, but we can work on it over there before putting it up for a vote. Jo On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 3:09 PM Francesco Ansanelli

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

I saw your changes... LGTM. Thanks! It would be great to have a page to document your proposal. Cheers Francesco Il dom 30 ago 2020, 12:03 Jo ha scritto: > Hi Francesco, > > I will create the superroute and route relations as an example. If you > don't like the solution, feel free to remove

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

To clarify: the transfer role could be added to the role value list: *None* or main The role value for the main section(s) of a signposted or in any way waymarked route. alternative A signposted or otherwise waymarked alternative branching off then rejoining the main route at a significantly

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

I think the transfer section only needs the role transfer. The exact way of transport there is tagged on the child relation which is a route in itself. (type=route, route=*). Peter Elderson Op zo 30 aug. 2020 om 13:11 schreef Jo : > I was in a hurry to go and eat and forgot to say this: > > In

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

I was in a hurry to go and eat and forgot to say this: In the Italian station, I added a footway through the station building and across the rails. That's not correct, of course. This should be improved with more detail. Is there a tunnel to cross the railway? A bridge? Do people have to risk it

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

True. In that case, a transfer relation in a superroute is necessary. Like all the other roles: do not combine these roles on ways with with forward/backward, use a relation instead. Vr gr Peter Elderson Op zo 30 aug. 2020 om 12:06 schreef Jo : > Hi Francesco, > > I will create the superroute

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

I uploaded my way to solve this: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11560387 Polyglot On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 12:03 PM Jo wrote: > Hi Francesco, > > I will create the superroute and route relations as an example. If you > don't like the solution, feel free to remove those relations again

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

Hi Francesco, I will create the superroute and route relations as an example. If you don't like the solution, feel free to remove those relations again afterwards. I will only fix a small error in the original relation, but keep it for now, so both solutions can be analysed next to each other. I

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

I suggest: role transfer for the transfer part. The transfer part could be a route separate relation in a superroute, the transfer type is given by the relation route type. The transfer part could be a way or a chain of ways in a regular oute relation, the transfer type is then determined by the

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

Dear Polyglot, it sounds good to me. But what roles do you suggest for such superroute? Many thanks Francesco Il giorno dom 30 ago 2020 alle ore 11:00 Jo ha scritto: > How would you feel about mapping it with a superroute relation? > > The superroute would then contain 3 route relations. > > 1

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

How would you feel about mapping it with a superroute relation? The superroute would then contain 3 route relations. 1 for the first part by bicycle 1 for the middle part by train 1 for the last part by bicycle If we give the train part a different role in the superroute, we can make it such

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

Hello, a new example that could benefit of this proposal: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/10605853 Can someone please go ahead and make a proposal? Many thanks Best regards Francesco Il mer 24 giu 2020, 23:25 Peter Elderson ha scritto: > For the record, I think a transfer role is a

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

For the record, I think a transfer role is a generic solution for the issue raised here, applicable to the cable car transfer and other types of transfer in routes, but I will not propose a new role value any time soon. Anyone who wants to do it has my support, though. Vr gr Peter Elderson Op

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

sent from a phone > On 20. Jun 2020, at 01:58, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Normal OSM access is assumed to be access=yes, where some access is > restricted then in OSM it should be marked *=no. for roads access=yes is assumed, it is not necessarily the default for all kind of

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

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

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

Dear Peter, Maybe I wasn't so clear, but I agree with you, if the train is bicycle=yes you can add it with "transfer" role in a bicycle route. Cheers Francesco Il giorno ven 19 giu 2020 alle ore 14:35 Peter Elderson ha scritto: > I think a bicycle route can not declare a rail route to be

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

This is 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 : > I think a bicycle route can not

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

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

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

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"

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

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

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

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

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

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 <

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

Il lun 16 dic 2019, 10:56 Warin <61sundow...@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 < > vosc...@gmail.com>: > >> Can we come back to talking about a solution. >> Maybe an appropriate new role value could

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

On 16/12/19 20:21, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Am Mo., 16. Dez. 2019 um 10:02 Uhr schrieb Volker Schmidt mailto:vosc...@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

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

Am Mo., 16. Dez. 2019 um 10:02 Uhr schrieb Volker Schmidt : > 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

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

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. On Mon, 16 Dec 2019, 09:43 Martin

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

sent from a phone > On 15. Dec 2019, at 16:03, Greg Troxel wrote: > > It seems bicycle=no is in order. and foot=no so that pushing is not an option. Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

Il dom 15 dic 2019, 16:03 Greg Troxel ha scritto: > Martin Koppenhoefer writes: > > > sent from a phone > > > >> On 14. Dec 2019, at 08:02, Francesco Ansanelli > wrote: > >> > >> Thanks everybody for the feedback. > >> I've added the bicycle=dismount on the railway. > > > > if I saw this I

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

Martin Koppenhoefer writes: > sent from a phone > >> On 14. Dec 2019, at 08:02, Francesco Ansanelli wrote: >> >> Thanks everybody for the feedback. >> I've added the bicycle=dismount on the railway. > > if I saw this I would think I’d have to push the bike there, not take a train It seems

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

On 15/12/19 01:58, Jo wrote: Jesus would float, obviously, but what about his bicycle? mtnbs float too. Don't know about the road bike. On Fri, Dec 13, 2019, 20:59 Peter Elderson > wrote: We  happily add ferry transfers to hiking routes. Nobody has been

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

On 14/12/2019 14:42, Volker Schmidt wrote: Adding a bicycle=dismount is OK I suppose, but I'm unsure there's really a problem. This street in Padova carries a (mono-rail) tram (railway=tram) and is closed to bicycles, tagged with bicycle=no. I

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

My take on this would be to create a separate route relation for the funicular part and add that to the bicycle route relation. For validation purposes that would be the simplest and clearest way of doing things. Simply adding the rails would mean that you'd have to cycle on the rails, or at least

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

Jesus would float, obviously, but what about his bicycle? On Fri, Dec 13, 2019, 20:59 Peter Elderson wrote: > We happily add ferry transfers to hiking routes. Nobody has been found > trying to walk on the water. Nobody that we know of... > > Fr gr Peter Elderson > > > Op vr 13 dec. 2019 om

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

: > A router should never assume that a route tag overrules a way or node tag, > for access. > That is certainly correct. My point was that route membership or not can and does influence the preference assigned to that way for routing purposes. > ___

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

A router should never assume that a route tag overrules a way or node tag, for access. Vr gr Peter Elderson Op za 14 dec. 2019 om 15:43 schreef Volker Schmidt : > > > > Adding a bicycle=dismount is OK I suppose, but I'm unsure there's really >> a problem. > > This street in Padova

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

Adding a bicycle=dismount is OK I suppose, but I'm unsure there's really > a problem. This street in Padova carries a (mono-rail) tram (railway=tram) and is closed to bicycles, tagged with bicycle=no. I intended to re-tag this with bicycle=dismount in

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

Francesco Ansanelli wrote: > I added a bicycle route that implies the use of a funicular > (railway). I'm not sure how to "tell" in the relation that > you have to take the train and not ride the railway. Just add the railway to the bike route relation, and make sure that each end of the

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

On 14/12/2019 10:17, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: if I saw this I would think I’d have to push the bike there, not take a train Well, yes - you would have to push it into the carriage. Your assumption would only occur if the railway tag is ignored. Cheers DaveF

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

On 14/12/2019 07:00, Francesco Ansanelli wrote: Thanks everybody for the feedback. I've added the bicycle=dismount on the railway. I think we still need some role in the relation to better describe the situation. Adding a bicycle=dismount is OK I suppose, but I'm unsure there's really a

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

I agree with Martin. As said before the tagging of - take the train (and your rucksack) - board the bus with your bicycle - take the ski-lift to get to the start of the next downhill section - take the water bus with your bike and be prepared that the captain does not accept any

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

sent from a phone > On 14. Dec 2019, at 08:02, Francesco Ansanelli wrote: > > Thanks everybody for the feedback. > I've added the bicycle=dismount on the railway. if I saw this I would think I’d have to push the bike there, not take a train Cheers Martin

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

Thanks everybody for the feedback. I've added the bicycle=dismount on the railway. I think we still need some role in the relation to better describe the situation. Il sab 14 dic 2019, 00:52 Volker Schmidt ha scritto: > It's a good question. > The ferry-boat example is familiar here as well,

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

It's a good question. The ferry-boat example is familiar here as well, but no information is given on the ferry stretches. I know of shuttle buses to overcome steep or dangerous road stretches in bicycle routes. I am sure there are cable cats in recreational walking routes. There are multi-valley

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

On 14/12/19 06:38, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: sent from a phone On 13. Dec 2019, at 18:37, Francesco Ansanelli wrote: I added a bicycle route that implies the use of a funicular (railway). I'm not sure how to "tell" in the relation that you have to take the train and not ride the

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

We happily add ferry transfers to hiking routes. Nobody has been found trying to walk on the water. Nobody that we know of... Fr gr Peter Elderson Op vr 13 dec. 2019 om 20:39 schreef Martin Koppenhoefer < dieterdre...@gmail.com>: > > > sent from a phone > > On 13. Dec 2019, at 18:37,

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

sent from a phone > On 13. Dec 2019, at 18:37, Francesco Ansanelli wrote: > > I added a bicycle route that implies the use of a funicular (railway). > I'm not sure how to "tell" in the relation that you have to take the train > and not ride the railway. > Can you give me some hint? I am