I was in a hurry to go and eat and forgot to say this: In the Italian station, I added a footway through the station building and across the rails. That's not correct, of course. This should be improved with more detail. Is there a tunnel to cross the railway? A bridge? Do people have to risk it at an unsupervised level_crossing?
If there is a tunnel or a bridge, most likely there is also a part with stairs. Possibly the train always arrives near the station building and never on the southern track as it is mapped now? I now added a role transfer in the superroute relation. Maybe a role transfer_on_foot, transfer_by_train, transfer_by_ferry, transfer_by_funicular would be more descriptive? For this we would need to create a proposal, but at the moment I'm mostly interested in your opinions. Creating a proposal and following up on it is a lot of work. I'm not sure if I have the stamina for it. But anyone can do it, so if you feel like it, go ahead. Jo On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 12:39 PM Jo <winfi...@gmail.com> wrote: > I uploaded my way to solve this: > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11560387 > > Polyglot > > On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 12:03 PM Jo <winfi...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi Francesco, >> >> I will create the superroute and route relations as an example. If you >> don't like the solution, feel free to remove those relations again >> afterwards. I will only fix a small error in the original relation, but >> keep it for now, so both solutions can be analysed next to each other. >> >> I don't really like the idea of a role 'transfer' on all those railway >> ways in a single route relation. In the case of your example, there is only >> a single railway, but in theory there could be one for each direction of >> travel of the train. So if you want to describe that in the route relation, >> you would need role forward/backward in the route relation, which cannot be >> combined with role transfer. >> >> Jo >> >> On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 11:24 AM Francesco Ansanelli <franci...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Dear Polyglot, >>> >>> it sounds good to me. But what roles do you suggest for such superroute? >>> Many thanks >>> Francesco >>> >>> Il giorno dom 30 ago 2020 alle ore 11:00 Jo <winfi...@gmail.com> ha >>> scritto: >>> >>>> How would you feel about mapping it with a superroute relation? >>>> >>>> The superroute would then contain 3 route relations. >>>> >>>> 1 for the first part by bicycle >>>> 1 for the middle part by train >>>> 1 for the last part by bicycle >>>> >>>> If we give the train part a different role in the superroute, we can >>>> make it such that the continuity line in JOSM is still drawn. >>>> >>>> This solution might also work to indicate that certain parts of a >>>> bicycle route need to be done on foot. Although creating separate route >>>> relations for such short stretches may feel like overkill. >>>> >>>> The other 'interruption' of a bicycle route I can think of, is where a >>>> ferry needs to be taken. In theory this could also be a funicular. In >>>> Antwerpen there is a special bus service that takes cyclists through a >>>> tunnel under river Schelde (for commuters, where a ferry was abolished, >>>> it's unlikely we'll create a route relation for this, but not >>>> impossible/unthinkable). >>>> >>>> In JOSM PT_Assistant there will soon be a convenience button to extract >>>> route relations from route or superroute relations, to make a conversion >>>> from route to superroute+route relations easier to do. >>>> >>>> Polyglot >>>> >>>> On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 9:59 AM Francesco Ansanelli < >>>> franci...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hello, >>>>> >>>>> a new example that could benefit of this proposal: >>>>> >>>>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/10605853 >>>>> >>>>> Can someone please go ahead and make a proposal? >>>>> >>>>> Many thanks >>>>> Best regards >>>>> Francesco >>>>> >>>>> Il mer 24 giu 2020, 23:25 Peter Elderson <pelder...@gmail.com> ha >>>>> scritto: >>>>> >>>>>> For the record, I think a transfer role is a generic solution >>>>>> for the issue raised here, applicable to the cable car transfer and other >>>>>> types of transfer in routes, but I will not propose a new role value any >>>>>> time soon. >>>>>> >>>>>> Anyone who wants to do it has my support, though. >>>>>> >>>>>> Vr gr Peter Elderson >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Op za 20 jun. 2020 om 09:13 schreef Martin Koppenhoefer < >>>>>> dieterdre...@gmail.com>: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> sent from a phone >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > On 20. Jun 2020, at 01:58, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Normal OSM access is assumed to be access=yes, where some access >>>>>>> is restricted then in OSM it should be marked *=no. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> for roads access=yes is assumed, it is not necessarily the default >>>>>>> for all kind of features. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cheers Martin >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Tagging mailing list >>>>>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >>>>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >>>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Tagging mailing list >>>>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >>>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Tagging mailing list >>>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Tagging mailing list >>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >>>> >>>
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging