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
