Support route=funicular #93

jeanbaptisteC commented 2026年06月01日 18:31:46 +02:00

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/224208

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/224208

patepelo commented 2026年06月02日 05:27:35 +02:00

For aerialway and funicular, I wonder if we could instead give an approach of how ferry routing is supported, i.e. as part of the walking routing with an option to disable it.

For aerialway and funicular, I wonder if we could instead give an approach of how ferry routing is supported, i.e. as part of the walking routing with an option to disable it.

pastk commented 2026年06月02日 07:50:25 +02:00

PT routing is useful because it routes through networks with multiple stops and interchanges.
So including into "subway" layer might make sense for longer lines.
However e.g. a short funicular with just two stations might even look weird on the subway map? i.e. it'd be a short line disconnected from everything else.
Also people might be not even aware they need to use subway routing to use such lines.

So for such cases ferry-like approach might make more sense indeed.

PT routing is useful because it routes through networks with multiple stops and interchanges. So including into "subway" layer might make sense for longer lines. However e.g. a short funicular with just two stations might even look weird on the subway map? i.e. it'd be a short line disconnected from everything else. Also people might be not even aware they need to use subway routing to use such lines. So for such cases ferry-like approach might make more sense indeed.

patepelo commented 2026年06月02日 16:58:21 +02:00

I'm thinking there's no easy choice. We probably should discuss this in a broader topic.

When you compare Walking Navigation in contrast to Public Transport Navigation, there's often an overlap, where walking is always a big part of it.

In our current approach, I've often encounter the routing result of being suggested to take a ferry instead of walking. (This can be a great discoverability option, but often is unwanted, hence the option to "Avoid ferries" solves it.

When I think of Aerial Ways or Funiculars, I often compare to the Barcelona example context. The city has funicular that is part of the metro system and even has inter-connection hubs, where changing transport modes is straight forward, but it also has some funiculars that are not part of the local network and the target audience is more for tourism, selling tickets at around 10€. The same applies to part of the aerial ways, there's one that is super touristic that people stay in line for at least 30 min, and one that's semi-touristic, it's a bit pricy but you could consider it as part of PT infrastructure.

I'm thinking there's no easy choice. We probably should discuss this in a broader topic. When you compare Walking Navigation in contrast to Public Transport Navigation, there's often an overlap, where walking is always a big part of it. In our current approach, I've often encounter the routing result of being suggested to take a ferry instead of walking. (This can be a great discoverability option, but often is unwanted, hence the option to "Avoid ferries" solves it. When I think of Aerial Ways or Funiculars, I often compare to the Barcelona example context. The city has funicular that is part of the metro system and even has inter-connection hubs, where changing transport modes is straight forward, but it also has some funiculars that are not part of the local network and the target audience is more for tourism, selling tickets at around 10€. The same applies to part of the aerial ways, there's one that is super touristic that people stay in line for at least 30 min, and one that's semi-touristic, it's a bit pricy but you could consider it as part of PT infrastructure.

zyphlar commented 2026年06月02日 17:59:54 +02:00

I agree: for example monorails and "people movers" are often barely even ticketed and only kinda part of a transit network, for example at airports a moving vehicle with stops (shuttle bus, people mover, guided railway) may be the only way to get between terminals (see Orlando airport as my personal #1 example but also Phoenix has a "monorail" that bridges the light rail, airport parking, and each terminal, where before it had/has only shuttle buses (or the option of a really long walk that no sane person chooses))

I think walking to the stop, boarding and exiting the shuttle correctly, and continuing with walking instructions, would be ideal for these cases. I've often considered mapping i.e. Orlando as "moving walkways" since that's basically how they affect routing.

More broadly: semi-unified transit modes like walking to/from transit or walking from your parked car to a business is generally nice.

I agree: for example monorails and "people movers" are often barely even ticketed and only kinda part of a transit network, for example at airports a moving vehicle with stops (shuttle bus, people mover, guided railway) may be the only way to get between terminals (see Orlando airport as my personal #1 example but also Phoenix has a "monorail" that bridges the light rail, airport parking, and each terminal, where before it had/has only shuttle buses (or the option of a really long walk that no sane person chooses)) I think walking to the stop, boarding and exiting the shuttle correctly, and continuing with walking instructions, would be ideal for these cases. I've often considered mapping i.e. Orlando as "moving walkways" since that's basically how they affect routing. More broadly: semi-unified transit modes like walking to/from transit or walking from your parked car to a business is generally nice.