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 the child relation, you don't need to specify that in the role. This is valid for many route types. I would suggest not to present it as a complex bicycle route, but as a way to incorporate transfer sections of different types in routes of any transport type. Best, Peter Elderson Op zo 30 aug. 2020 om 17:52 schreef Jo <[email protected]>: > 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 <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> 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 <[email protected]> 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 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 don't really like the idea of a role 'transfer' on all those railway >>> ways in a single route relation. In the case of your example, there is only >>> a single railway, but in theory there could be one for each direction of >>> travel of the train. So if you want to describe that in the route relation, >>> you would need role forward/backward in the route relation, which cannot be >>> combined with role transfer. >>> >>> Jo >>> >>> On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 11:24 AM Francesco Ansanelli < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> 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 <[email protected]> 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 < >>>>> [email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 < >>>>>>> [email protected]>: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> sent from a phone >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > On 20. Jun 2020, at 01:58, Warin <[email protected]> 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 >>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Tagging mailing list >>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >>>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Tagging mailing list >>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Tagging mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
