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, <[email protected]> wrote: > Marc, > > On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 1:01 PM, Marc Gemis <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> >>> 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 > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be >
_______________________________________________ Talk-be mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
