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 <winfi...@gmail.com> ha scritto: > 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 that the continuity line in JOSM is still drawn. > > This solution might also work to indicate that certain parts of a bicycle > route need to be done on foot. Although creating separate route relations > for such short stretches may feel like overkill. > > The other 'interruption' of a bicycle route I can think of, is where a > ferry needs to be taken. In theory this could also be a funicular. In > Antwerpen there is a special bus service that takes cyclists through a > tunnel under river Schelde (for commuters, where a ferry was abolished, > it's unlikely we'll create a route relation for this, but not > impossible/unthinkable). > > In JOSM PT_Assistant there will soon be a convenience button to extract > route relations from route or superroute relations, to make a conversion > from route to superroute+route relations easier to do. > > Polyglot > > On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 9:59 AM Francesco Ansanelli <franci...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> 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 <pelder...@gmail.com> ha >> scritto: >> >>> 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 za 20 jun. 2020 om 09:13 schreef Martin Koppenhoefer < >>> dieterdre...@gmail.com>: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 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 features. >>>> >>>> >>>> Cheers Martin >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Tagging mailing list >>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Tagging mailing list >>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Tagging mailing list >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging