This <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Recreational_route_relation_roles#Transfer> is the talk page section I wrote about a week ago, for future consideration.
Fr gr Peter Elderson Op vr 19 jun. 2020 om 14:33 schreef Peter Elderson <pelder...@gmail.com>: > I think a bicycle route can not declare a rail route to be bicycle=yes. I > think you should verify that the train is bicycle=yes before you call it a > transfer. If it isn't, you can't declare it to be a part of your waymarked > bicycle route, can you? > > Apart from that, if a router uses the bicycle route relation, it should > alway check the ways themselves for access, no matter what the route > relation says. > > Fr gr Peter Elderson > > > Op vr 19 jun. 2020 om 14:02 schreef Francesco Ansanelli < > franci...@gmail.com>: > >> Dear Volker and Peter, >> >> I agree with you both... >> The question was born for a bike+train (funicular actually), but it can >> be implemented in a generic way to fix similar cases. >> Insead of interrupting the relation on the railway, we can put the other >> public transport one as a member with a "transfer" role. >> Of course, I assume the transfer relation will have 1 or 2 common points >> with our trip (stops): >> let's say a train starts from station A, but we take it at station B with >> our bike, we get off at station C, but the last station will be Z. >> I don't think this could be an issue, but should be considered for any >> future implementation. >> Transfer relations should also consider the parent's relation type (ex. >> route=bicycle, implies bicycle=yes on the train route). >> What do you think? >> >> Francesco >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Tagging mailing list >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
