Il lun 16 dic 2019, 10:56 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> ha scritto: > On 16/12/19 20:21, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > Am Mo., 16. Dez. 2019 um 10:02 Uhr schrieb Volker Schmidt < > vosc...@gmail.com>: > >> Can we come back to talking about a solution. >> Maybe an appropriate new role value could be a solution: role=take_train >> on the corresponding train section in the bicycle route, for example. >> However, this would provide an easy way to add train ride details. >> > > > I would add the train route relation as member, rather than the individual > railway ways. > > If the entire train route is used then ok. But if only a section is used > then I think the relevant ways only should be included. > > If a simple dataconsumer is not aware, it would should a hole in the > bicycle relation (what IMHO is a good way to show that there is something > special, in particular that you cannot simply ride your bike there), while > a data consumer who specifically understands the situation could give > specific directions. I agree a specific role also seems reasonable (could > be extended to ferries, trams, aerialways, etc.) > > > role=take_train would not work for ferries, buses, canoes etc. > > > I think role=transport could work .. provided the way identifies what form > of transport is used ... that could be a problem for bus routes? > > role=transport_train/transport_bus??? >
I agree with the 'transport' name, it's the same I was thinking too... Also 'transport_relation' could be fine. Since you are adding a relation as segment you will get the type of relation from it. At this point I'd remove all information from the rail, do a relation ptv2 and add that to my route. > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
