Marc,
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 1:01 PM, Marc Gemis <marc.ge...@gmail.com>
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 <andreeng...@gmail.com>
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
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
