Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - More Consistency in Railway Tagging
I think Martin it is best to focus your proposal on the area that is manageable, smaller in scale and something that your know and have passion about. So in this case I would just do a something for trams. I think the initial problems with the proposal was it was radical and effected millions of ways as it was all railways, and that is a huge and fairly well established area. Reading my comments back I didn't want/mean to sound aggressive I was just an understanding of what you were trying to do and the problems that it can cause. I have never mapped trams so it is not my area of interest/expertise but common it seem to be going forward that many map 1 per track. I know that is not something you (initially) wanted but maybe something can come from it. I am unclear on the whole proposal thing and if is need to clarify and add details to the wiki. I have added details and clarification to the wiki pages (Stadiums, golf courses (although I have never played or even like golf :/) in the past and I have never done a proposal. And I want to at some point add clarification and examples to the rail pages that we are striving to map all tracks if possible. I think a lot can be done in relations for the routes of the trams. I notice that for your San Fran example there are no relations attached to these trams lines. That will tell the people where they go and the routes they take. It is up to the mapping render/software to decide what is displayed. Transport map I think will show the relations and routes of the trams. With relations they should be easier to follow and I think will led to better understanding of what can be mapped in the future. I would look at other examples of trams around the world, find what you consider the best examples and discuss them here. Update the wiki with good examples. I find that is what is lacking in the wiki is good examples of good practice. Generally I think people will follow good examples of good practice. Then you can be our tram tzar. :) -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Feature-Proposal-RFC-More-Consistency-in-Railway-Tagging-tp5756879p5757023.html Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - More Consistency in Railway Tagging
Apologies I looked a little more at the San Fran area link you post you do have relations for the tram (which you added as tram yesterday...) as a road combo just not for each line of the trams which is tagged as light_rail. Which I presume it is just a tram line and therefore wrong anyway. I can see more clearly the problem you are having there now. I think once it is all per track it will become clearer for you. -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Feature-Proposal-RFC-More-Consistency-in-Railway-Tagging-tp5756879p5757027.html Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - More Consistency in Railway Tagging
Now I started looking at trams and lightrail I see more of a need of consistent standards. They seem to be used interchangeably in San Fran and in Portland which was quoted a good example in the US most (nearly all) of what I would call tram lines are tagged light_rail with some tagged as trams lines spurring off and joining them at them at some points. Does anyone know of a reason for this? Are they generally and/or technically considered trams or Light Rail in the states? Now there is no wiki defination at all of railway=light_rail. The more I look the more I realise how bad we are as a community for documentation. I consider light rail to be a mini railway and not on roads on tracks whereas trams in generally go on streets. I imagine wikipedia will say similiar. Any thoughts? -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Feature-Proposal-RFC-More-Consistency-in-Railway-Tagging-tp5756879p5757034.html Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - More Consistency in Railway Tagging
It seems that the terms light rail and tram are used interchangeably around the world so mostly ignore my last comments. I don't know where this leave OSM tagging standards for them though. In the UK we do class them as different and it just show my sheltered life and knowledge on this subject... -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Feature-Proposal-RFC-More-Consistency-in-Railway-Tagging-tp5756879p5757037.html Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - More Consistency in Railway Tagging
Just a thought. Is the word tram widely understood in the US? That could be a reason, the closest to street car found is light rail maybe. Phil (trigpoint) -- Sent from my Nokia N9 On 14/04/2013 14:02 Rovastar wrote: Now I started looking at trams and lightrail I see more of a need of consistent standards. They seem to be used interchangeably in San Fran and in Portland which was quoted a good example in the US most (nearly all) of what I would call tram lines are tagged light_rail with some tagged as trams lines spurring off and joining them at them at some points. Does anyone know of a reason for this? Are they generally and/or technically considered trams or Light Rail in the states? Now there is no wiki defination at all of railway=light_rail. The more I look the more I realise how bad we are as a community for documentation. I consider light rail to be a mini railway and not on roads on tracks whereas trams in generally go on streets. I imagine wikipedia will say similiar. Any thoughts? -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Feature-Proposal-RFC-More-Consistency-in-Railway-Tagging-tp5756879p5757034.html Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Feature-Proposal-RFC-More-Consistency-in-Railway-Tagging-tp5756879p5757034.html ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - More Consistency in Railway Tagging
Hi, My view (I'll try to be concise). Being able to map both abstractions (like a schematic route) and physical details is a real problem. We need to be able to do both. The problem is not unique to rail. Use cases I've thought of: - roads (the road network, vs the individual bits of tarmac) - rail (the line vs the bits of track) - power (the power grid vs every individual power line) - traffic lights (this intersection has traffic lights vs each individual physical traffic light) - universities, hospitals, precincts (the campus as a whole, rather than the individual plots of land near each other) - bike parking (space for 20 bikes here vs 10 individual bike hoops) - car parking (space for 200 cars here vs several individual parking areas) - bike routes (the route follows the river, vs the two individual tracks on each bank) The point is: it's hard to make beautiful maps without mapping the abstractions. The physical detail looks ok at high zoom levels, but when you're zoomed out, it's messy - and it's really not easy to automatically generate these kinds of abstractions. It would be really good to have a single, consistent approach (including terminology) for this multiple levels of abstraction problem. Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - More Consistency in Railway Tagging
What about the difference in signalling systems? As I understand it, what I would call a Tram is completely under control of the driver. He/she alone decides when to stop/start, and even which way to go at junctions. They have traffic lights which are interconnected with the lights for other road users. One tram can approach the rear of another without any problem, just as other vehicles wait behind each other at junctions. What I would call Light Rail uses a more serious signalling system, more closely related to its big brother where train paths are pre-planned using some kind of (fixed/moving) block system. Is tram vs light rail an attribute of the vehicles, the service or the infrastructure? Can a single route transition from being one to the other? Colin On 2013-04-14 15:21, Rovastar wrote: It seems that the terms light rail and tram are used interchangeably around the world so mostly ignore my last comments. I don't know where this leave OSM tagging standards for them though. In the UK we do class them as different and it just show my sheltered life and knowledge on this subject... -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Feature-Proposal-RFC-More-Consistency-in-Railway-Tagging-tp5756879p5757037.html [1] Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging [2] Links: -- [1] http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Feature-Proposal-RFC-More-Consistency-in-Railway-Tagging-tp5756879p5757037.html [2] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - More Consistency in Railway Tagging
On 04/14/2013 06:02 AM, Rovastar wrote: Now I started looking at trams and lightrail I see more of a need of consistent standards. They seem to be used interchangeably in San Fran and in Portland which was quoted a good example in the US most (nearly all) of what I would call tram lines are tagged light_rail with some tagged as trams lines spurring off and joining them at them at some points. Does anyone know of a reason for this? Are they generally and/or technically considered trams or Light Rail in the states? Now there is no wiki defination at all of railway=light_rail. The more I look the more I realise how bad we are as a community for documentation. I consider light rail to be a mini railway and not on roads on tracks whereas trams in generally go on streets. I imagine wikipedia will say similiar. Any thoughts? Yeah, I was struggling with this myself. San Francisco's vehicles actually behave like a mixture of subway, light rail and tram. (with light rail defined as higher-standard tram system separated from highways, as it is on the wiki) Colin Smale noted in a descendent message that tram/light_rail can also differ in signalling, and of course SF has various types here too: when the vehicles run along what used to be tram lines the driver is in complete control and obeys traffic signals -- sometimes distinct lamps but always connected to the rest of the intersection. In some newer sections the mere presence of a train gives it right of way over other traffic, as if there were a level crossing. And finally, when they traverse the main subway they suddenly become more like subway trains and have an automatic train control system with moving block signalling[1]. The original mapper of SF rail tagged everything as light_rail, but as an experiment yesterday I re-tagged one of the lines as a tram -- at least, as much of it as I could get away with without affecting other lines and while making it all trivially revertable. For what it's worth, the local transport agency tends to refer to this class of thing as light rail vehicles, and I think if you consider the vehicles rather than the rails then that's fair, though prevailing discussion on the wiki suggested to me that we should tag based on the characteristics of the rails rather than of the vehicles, which for me makes *sections* of SF's rail network be classified as tram tracks. Just to throw in one further complication, San Francisco's transport agency also operates more traditional trams[2] but every day they traverse some of the tracks used by the light rail vehicles, and in one section there's even a pair of platforms at each station to enable high-platform boarding of the light rail vehicles but ground-level boarding of the trams... further fodder, I think, for ignoring the vehicles and concentrating on the rails. [1] To prove it, here's a real-time image of the state of the main subway: http://sfmunicentral.com/sfmunicentral_Snapshot_Objects/snapshot.jpg The rest of the network is not controlled to nearly this level of detail. [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Sanfrancisco_fmarketandwharves_marketst.jpg ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - More Consistency in Railway Tagging
On 04/14/2013 06:32 AM, Steve Bennett wrote: Hi, My view (I'll try to be concise). Being able to map both abstractions (like a schematic route) and physical details is a real problem. We need to be able to do both. The problem is not unique to rail. Use cases I've thought of: - roads (the road network, vs the individual bits of tarmac) - rail (the line vs the bits of track) - power (the power grid vs every individual power line) - traffic lights (this intersection has traffic lights vs each individual physical traffic light) - universities, hospitals, precincts (the campus as a whole, rather than the individual plots of land near each other) - bike parking (space for 20 bikes here vs 10 individual bike hoops) - car parking (space for 200 cars here vs several individual parking areas) - bike routes (the route follows the river, vs the two individual tracks on each bank) The point is: it's hard to make beautiful maps without mapping the abstractions. The physical detail looks ok at high zoom levels, but when you're zoomed out, it's messy - and it's really not easy to automatically generate these kinds of abstractions. It would be really good to have a single, consistent approach (including terminology) for this multiple levels of abstraction problem. Yes, completely agreed! I was trying to achieve this in a more limited sense, with just the transport network: both highways and waterways already have tagging schemes described that broach this: - highway vs. area:highway - waterway=river vs. waterway=riverbank I consider my proposal as being a logical extension of this line of thought to railways, where railway represents the line, area:railway represents the area occupied by the line, and railway:track represents the individual tracks. It is unfortunate that highways and waterways are already inconsistent as described above: in retrospect, area:waterway=river would've been more consistent (but area:highway remains just a proposal, of course.) I was considering railways to be the odd one out as far as the transport network is concerned, but the rest of your list are all good examples of this problem outside of transport that I hadn't yet considered, though given how hard it is to even get buy-in for a revamp of railway tagging at this point I'm certainly not encouraged to try to define a universal mechanism for separating levels of abstraction across *all* features! :) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - More Consistency in Railway Tagging
Trams are ambiguous, in fact, Portland Transit calls their tram the Portland Streetcar, and their aerial gondola the OHSU Tram. Large trams border into light rail, the streetcar's heavier, faster, longer cousin. On Apr 14, 2013 8:03 AM, Rovastar rovas...@hotmail.com wrote: Now I started looking at trams and lightrail I see more of a need of consistent standards. They seem to be used interchangeably in San Fran and in Portland which was quoted a good example in the US most (nearly all) of what I would call tram lines are tagged light_rail with some tagged as trams lines spurring off and joining them at them at some points. Does anyone know of a reason for this? Are they generally and/or technically considered trams or Light Rail in the states? Now there is no wiki defination at all of railway=light_rail. The more I look the more I realise how bad we are as a community for documentation. I consider light rail to be a mini railway and not on roads on tracks whereas trams in generally go on streets. I imagine wikipedia will say similiar. Any thoughts? -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Feature-Proposal-RFC-More-Consistency-in-Railway-Tagging-tp5756879p5757034.html Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - More Consistency in Railway Tagging
Well, even in tram systems, there's some degree of block signaling, even if it's only where the track you're on crosses another track and otherwise uses street signals. Likewise, at least in the Portland system, light rail signals in areas where the trains run on street or on a roadway median have transit priority signals identical to what is ised for bus rapid transit, usually with a repeater of the signal for adjacent traffic, since trains can proceed under specific circumstances without a priority signal being given. On Apr 14, 2013 8:56 AM, Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl wrote: ** What about the difference in signalling systems? As I understand it, what I would call a Tram is completely under control of the driver. He/she alone decides when to stop/start, and even which way to go at junctions. They have traffic lights which are interconnected with the lights for other road users. One tram can approach the rear of another without any problem, just as other vehicles wait behind each other at junctions. What I would call Light Rail uses a more serious signalling system, more closely related to its big brother where train paths are pre-planned using some kind of (fixed/moving) block system. Is tram vs light rail an attribute of the vehicles, the service or the infrastructure? Can a single route transition from being one to the other? Colin On 2013-04-14 15:21, Rovastar wrote: It seems that the terms light rail and tram are used interchangeably around the world so mostly ignore my last comments. I don't know where this leave OSM tagging standards for them though. In the UK we do class them as different and it just show my sheltered life and knowledge on this subject... -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Feature-Proposal-RFC-More-Consistency-in-Railway-Tagging-tp5756879p5757037.html Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Tagging mailing listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Power generation refinement: power plant model evolution
Hi LM_1 Here is the first opnion in favor of using relations in this thread, let's debate :) 2013/4/12 LM_1 flukas.robot+...@gmail.com 1) All situations complex and simple can be mapped in the same way - this makes my mapping easier. That's the point which is highlighted by data quality and consistency persons. I would love this too but it's hard for me to make a choice between mappers load of work and data consuming easing. Those seem to be incompatible, don't you? 2) Single real object can have all the information on one place only, not on 50+ osm objects (eg. name of long streets). Concerning power plants, type of primitive doesn't matter since all plant's information is stored whether in a relation or in a closed area. 3) Higher level, more abstract features can be handled more easily. That's a good point. With relations, all power plants would be mapped the same way and consuming rules would be simpler. = Mapping rules would implicitly be too : Okay a power plant, let's use a relation instead of Errr a power plant, is it closed or is it dispersed? But look above what Martin Vonwald thinks about data consuming :) 4) With appropriate editor (eg. JOSM with Relation Toolbox) it is no more difficult to learn than drawing a square. +1 10) Relations just make sense. It makes relational sense, but not spatially sense, to be objective. It would be great to find out what are the state of the art in OSM to make a better choice than heads or tails : *what is used for airports, train stations, factories,... ?* If we can't do that, I'll make a choice which won't satisfy everyone here and *the proposal may not be accepted* (which is not an option for me when I look back to the amount of time I spent on it). Cheers. -- *François Lacombe* francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu http://www.infos-reseaux.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (highway=bicyle_crossing) (Alberto)
As a result of the discussion done here about bicycle-only crossings, I've made a proposal: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/bicycle_crossing http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/bicycle_crossing Cheers Alberto - Viking81 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
