Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

[Francesco Ansanelli]

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 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

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

[Jo]

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 
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  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

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

[Francesco Ansanelli]

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 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 
> 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  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

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

[Peter Elderson]

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 tags of the ways.
editors, QA-tools and datausers would have to handle the role.

It fits in nicely with the accepted roles for recreational routes,
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Roles_for_recreational_route_relations


Best, Peter Elderson


Op zo 30 aug. 2020 om 11:26 schreef Francesco Ansanelli :

> 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 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 
>> 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  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
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

[Jo]

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 
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  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 
>> 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  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

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

[Jo]

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
> 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 
> 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  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 
>>> 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  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

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

[Peter Elderson]

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 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 
> 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  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 
>>> 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  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
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

[Jo]

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 at an unsupervised level_crossing?

If there is a tunnel or a bridge, most likely there is also a part with
stairs.

Possibly the train always arrives near the station building and never on
the southern track as it is mapped now?

I now added a role transfer in the superroute relation. Maybe a role
transfer_on_foot, transfer_by_train, transfer_by_ferry,
transfer_by_funicular would be more descriptive? For this we would need to
create a proposal, but at the moment I'm mostly interested in your
opinions. Creating a proposal and following up on it is a lot of work. I'm
not sure if I have the stamina for it. But anyone can do it, so if you feel
like it, go ahead.

Jo

On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 12:39 PM Jo  wrote:

> 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
>> 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 
>> 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  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  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
>>>
>> ___

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

[Peter Elderson]

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 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 at an unsupervised level_crossing?
>
> If there is a tunnel or a bridge, most likely there is also a part with
> stairs.
>
> Possibly the train always arrives near the station building and never on
> the southern track as it is mapped now?
>
> I now added a role transfer in the superroute relation. Maybe a role
> transfer_on_foot, transfer_by_train, transfer_by_ferry,
> transfer_by_funicular would be more descriptive? For this we would need to
> create a proposal, but at the moment I'm mostly interested in your
> opinions. Creating a proposal and following up on it is a lot of work. I'm
> not sure if I have the stamina for it. But anyone can do it, so if you feel
> like it, go ahead.
>
> Jo
>
> On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 12:39 PM Jo  wrote:
>
>> 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
>>> 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 <
>>> franci...@gmail.com> 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  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  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 

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

[Peter Elderson]

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 different point. The
alternative is used instead of a section of the main route.
excursion A signposted or otherwise waymarked side track which rejoins the
main track at or close to the same point where it left, e.g. to visit a
place of interest. The excursion is an optional addition to the main route.
approach Signposted or otherwise waymarked access route to or from
transport infrastructure e.g. parking, train station, bus station, cable
car. An approach is used in addition to the main route.
connection Signposted or otherwise waymarked link route from one
recreational route to another recreational route and vice versa. A
connection is used to switch from one route to another. Note that an
approach might act as a connection, e.g. when it ends/begins at a major
train station where other routes also pass through. In that case, use the
role approach.

Given this definition, the connection should appear in both routes involved.
*| transfer | Route section where a different mode of transport is
necessary, e.g. cable car transfer in a hikingh trail, train transfer in a
bicycle route, bus transfer through a tunnel. A transfer section is an
integral part of the route. |*

Best, Peter Elderson

Op zo 30 aug. 2020 om 12:47 schreef Peter Elderson :

> 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 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 
>> 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  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  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>:
>>
>>

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

[Francesco Ansanelli]

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 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 
> 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  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 
>>> 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  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

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

[Jo]

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 
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  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 
>> 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  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  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

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

[Peter Elderson]

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 :

> 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 
> 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  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 <
>>> franci...@gmail.com> 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  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  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

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

[Jo]

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:

> 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 :
>
>> 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 
>> 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  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 <
 franci...@gmail.com> 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  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  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...@g

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - UPRN and USRN

[Rob Nickerson]

Hi all,

Following on from the RFC on the Unique Property Reference Number (UPRN)
and Unique Street Reference Number (USRN) for use within Great Britain,
please note that these are now open for voting:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/ref:GB:uprn
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/ref:GB:usrn

Whilst I have done the work on the wiki page, these tags were first
proposed over on the talk-gb mailing list. They were discussed there and at
the SotM online meeting that the UK community held.

Voting is scheduled to close in two weeks.

Thank you
*Rob*
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

[Volker Schmidt]

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
). I am interested
in the Northern Norway part of it, because I remember containing many
ferries.
If you drill down with Waymarked trails - Cycling (both the Relation
Analyzer and OSM Route Manager are not capable of dealing with it) you will
see that this is a super relation of 9 relations.
Let's take the Norway part "EuroVelo 1 - Atlantic Coast Route - part Norway"
- relation 9523683. 
This is again a super relation of 4 relations.
The interesting part in this is "EuroVelo 1 - Atlantic Coast Route - part
Norway 2" - relation 9523681

That stretch of 670km has four ferry transfers, which in the new proposal
would create another layer  of 9 child relations.

Or another example, closer to home for me:
to get across the islands that close the lagoon of Venice you need to cross
three "mouths" (bocche). On two of them you have even the choice between
different service providers, which each would need a different relation.

Please don't do it.

The "transportation" role in the bicycle route relations should be
sufficient to cover this aspect.







On Sun, 30 Aug 2020 at 20:16, Jo  wrote:

> 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:
>
>> 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 :
>>
>>> 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 
>>> 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  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 <
> franci...@gmail.com> 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  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 cou

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

[Warin]

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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

[Jo]

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 members of a bicycle
route relation, which is what would happen in the case of the specialised
bus that takes bicycles through a tunnel.

The alternative is that we change the validator to disregard ways with the
role transport. Sure that would work as well.

Jo

On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 8:16 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

[Peter Elderson]

'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
combine this? Multiple roles are currently not defined.

Vr gr Peter Elderson


Op ma 31 aug. 2020 om 08:16 schreef Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:

> 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
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging