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 try and most likely fail.
Polyglot On Sat, Dec 14, 2019, 14:37 Richard Fairhurst <rich...@systemed.net> wrote: > 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 railway is directly connected to bike-routable ways. Here's > cycle.travel routing via the Tauern Tunnel: > https://cycle.travel/map?from=Salzburg&to=Grado > > (Unfortunately someone appears to have broken the relation since I last ran > a routing update, removing the tunnel from it, so that'll need fixing... > sigh. https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2771761 ) > > cheers > Richard > > > > -- > Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
