[OSM-talk] User WJtW - railway track counts

[Colin Smale]

 

Hi, 

User WJtW[1] has been making large numbers of edits to railways across
Europe in the past few months, all with the changeset comment
"Electrified". Most of them are adding tags like gauge=1435 which may
well be right (although I have no idea of his source for this). However
on many occasions he has added tracks=N to the individual tracks where
they are already mapped as N separate tracks. According to the wiki this
should now be interpreted as N*N tracks. For example, the Channel Tunnel
Rail Link south-east of London, is composed of two tracks (see [2] for a
sample way). They are now both tagged with tracks=2, saying that each
way represents 2 tracks, suggesting there are 4 in total, which is
wrong. 

I have sent two messages explaining as above and requesting that they
review this tagging, but no response so far. I noticed that another
mapper has also added a comment to at least one changeset with the same
intent. 

Any ideas how we can stop this behaviour, and repair the "damage"? 

//colin 

[1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/WJtW 

[2] http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/34574683 ___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] User WJtW - railway track counts

[Maarten Deen]

I have asked WJtW about this in june this year but received no answer. 
Then I saw user BAGgeraar remove the tracks tag so I asked him about it 
and he too asked WJtW and received no answer.
On the german forum there is a thread [1] about it also indicating it is 
a superfluous tag when all tracks are mapped.


It borders on vandalism.

[1] 

Regards,
Maarten

On 2015-10-07 09:20, Colin Smale wrote:

Hi,

User WJtW[1] has been making large numbers of edits to railways across
Europe in the past few months, all with the changeset comment
"Electrified". Most of them are adding tags like gauge=1435 which may
well be right (although I have no idea of his source for this).
However on many occasions he has added tracks=N to the individual
tracks where they are already mapped as N separate tracks. According
to the wiki this should now be interpreted as N*N tracks. For example,
the Channel Tunnel Rail Link south-east of London, is composed of two
tracks (see [2] for a sample way). They are now both tagged with
tracks=2, saying that each way represents 2 tracks, suggesting there
are 4 in total, which is wrong.

I have sent two messages explaining as above and requesting that they
review this tagging, but no response so far. I noticed that another
mapper has also added a comment to at least one changeset with the
same intent.

Any ideas how we can stop this behaviour, and repair the "damage"?

//colin

[1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/WJtW

[2] http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/34574683
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] User WJtW - railway track counts

[Colin Smale]

 

I am not sure it would be vandalism - It is more likely a
misunderstanding of the intention of the tracks=* tag. But it is very
damaging, and potentially hard to revert as this has been going on for
some time and newer edits may have been made. It may need something like
this: 

* Get all changesets from WJtW
* get all railway tracks from those changesets with tracks>1
* search back through the history to find where the tag was added
* see if it was user WJtW that did it
* If so, remove the tracks=* tag.

But in Dutch (as you will know) there is a wonderful expression about
trying to mop up (a flooded bathroom) while the tap is still running. We
need to turn the tap off and stop this getting any worse. 

It's starting to sound like a candidate for a user block until the user
engages in some kind of dialog. 

//colin 

On 2015-10-07 09:40, Maarten Deen wrote: 

> I have asked WJtW about this in june this year but received no answer. Then I 
> saw user BAGgeraar remove the tracks tag so I asked him about it and he too 
> asked WJtW and received no answer.
> On the german forum there is a thread [1 [1]] about it also indicating it is 
> a superfluous tag when all tracks are mapped.
> 
> It borders on vandalism.
> 
> [1 [1]] 
> 
> Regards,
> Maarten
> 
> On 2015-10-07 09:20, Colin Smale wrote: 
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> User WJtW[1 [1]] has been making large numbers of edits to railways across
>> Europe in the past few months, all with the changeset comment
>> "Electrified". Most of them are adding tags like gauge=1435 which may
>> well be right (although I have no idea of his source for this).
>> However on many occasions he has added tracks=N to the individual
>> tracks where they are already mapped as N separate tracks. According
>> to the wiki this should now be interpreted as N*N tracks. For example,
>> the Channel Tunnel Rail Link south-east of London, is composed of two
>> tracks (see [2 [2]] for a sample way). They are now both tagged with
>> tracks=2, saying that each way represents 2 tracks, suggesting there
>> are 4 in total, which is wrong.
>> 
>> I have sent two messages explaining as above and requesting that they
>> review this tagging, but no response so far. I noticed that another
>> mapper has also added a comment to at least one changeset with the
>> same intent.
>> 
>> Any ideas how we can stop this behaviour, and repair the "damage"?
>> 
>> //colin
>> 
>> [1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/WJtW
>> 
>> [2] http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/34574683
>> ___
>> talk mailing list
>> talk@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
> 
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
 

Links:
--
[1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/WJtW
[2] http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/34574683
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] User WJtW - railway track counts

[Richard Mann]

Putting tracks=1 on multiple parallel tracks is also potentially
misleading. It's a method of tagging that's been superseded by drawing each
line separately.

So I took to adding passenger_lines=N, to avoid a compatability conflict. I
only did N=1 or N>=4, though.

I'd suggest converting the tagging to tracks=1+passenger_lines=2.

Richard

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 8:40 AM, Maarten Deen  wrote:

> I have asked WJtW about this in june this year but received no answer.
> Then I saw user BAGgeraar remove the tracks tag so I asked him about it and
> he too asked WJtW and received no answer.
> On the german forum there is a thread [1] about it also indicating it is a
> superfluous tag when all tracks are mapped.
>
> It borders on vandalism.
>
> [1] 
>
> Regards,
> Maarten
>
>
> On 2015-10-07 09:20, Colin Smale wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> User WJtW[1] has been making large numbers of edits to railways across
>> Europe in the past few months, all with the changeset comment
>> "Electrified". Most of them are adding tags like gauge=1435 which may
>> well be right (although I have no idea of his source for this).
>> However on many occasions he has added tracks=N to the individual
>> tracks where they are already mapped as N separate tracks. According
>> to the wiki this should now be interpreted as N*N tracks. For example,
>> the Channel Tunnel Rail Link south-east of London, is composed of two
>> tracks (see [2] for a sample way). They are now both tagged with
>> tracks=2, saying that each way represents 2 tracks, suggesting there
>> are 4 in total, which is wrong.
>>
>> I have sent two messages explaining as above and requesting that they
>> review this tagging, but no response so far. I noticed that another
>> mapper has also added a comment to at least one changeset with the
>> same intent.
>>
>> Any ideas how we can stop this behaviour, and repair the "damage"?
>>
>> //colin
>>
>> [1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/WJtW
>>
>> [2] http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/34574683
>> ___
>> talk mailing list
>> talk@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>>
>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] User WJtW - railway track counts

[Michael Reichert]

Hi.

Am 2015-10-07 um 10:03 schrieb Colin Smale:
> I am not sure it would be vandalism - It is more likely a
> misunderstanding of the intention of the tracks=* tag. But it is very
> damaging, and potentially hard to revert as this has been going on for
> some time and newer edits may have been made. It may need something like
> this: 
> 
>   * Get all changesets from WJtW
>   * get all railway tracks from those changesets with tracks>1
>   * search back through the history to find where the tag was added
>   * see if it was user WJtW that did it
>   * If so, remove the tracks=* tag.

I (a German railway mapper) have been notified by another user about
WJtW's edits last week. I [1] have already started reverting parts of
his edits. That's the way I did it:

- Search for railway=rail + tracks=2 via Overpass Turbo (with meta as
output variant)
- Pick out one way of the result. If its last edited was done by WJtW, I
had a lookat the changeset which did this edit using Achavi. If the
changeset was mostly adding of tracks=2, I reverted it. Sometimes I did
partial reverts if only parts of the changeset were bad.
- If the last edit of the way was done by another user, I had a look
into the way's history and looked for the bad changeset(s) there.

You have to repeat this until the area which you are going to clean is
free of tracks=2.

Note: If you are looking at the area between Dortmund and Cologne –
there are lots of ways with tracks=2 from old times (about 4 to 7 years
ago) because tracks=2 has not been removed when the second track was
added to OSM.

> But in Dutch (as you will know) there is a wonderful expression about
> trying to mop up (a flooded bathroom) while the tap is still running. We
> need to turn the tap off and stop this getting any worse. 
> 
> It's starting to sound like a candidate for a user block until the user
> engages in some kind of dialog. 

I have asked DWG to block him (0-hour-block) because he has been
notified about his errors several times:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/34049497 (21 days ago in German)
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/34264606 (11 days ago in English)
http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/34313237 (7 days ago in English)

It is not the first time that a user used tracks=2 the wrong way. There
were/are users from time to time who add tracks=2 because there was a
map by ITO rendering tracks=2. I asked the people from ITO to shut down
this map a few days ago to prevent future abuse of tracks=2 as tagging
for the renderer. I thank ITO for their quick reaction (the took the map
offline). http://www.itoworld.com/map/group/1

Best regards

Michael aka Nakaner


[1] via my cleanup account Nakaner-repair


-- 
Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt. (Mailinglisten
ausgenommen)
I prefer GPG encryption of emails. (does not apply on mailing lists)



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] User WJtW - railway track counts

[Michael Reichert]

Hi,

Am 2015-10-07 um 10:24 schrieb Richard Mann:
> Putting tracks=1 on multiple parallel tracks is also potentially
> misleading. It's a method of tagging that's been superseded by drawing each
> line separately.
> 
> So I took to adding passenger_lines=N, to avoid a compatability conflict. I
> only did N=1 or N>=4, though.
> 
> I'd suggest converting the tagging to tracks=1+passenger_lines=2.

You can find the tag detail=track on lots of tracks in South-West
Germany instead of tracks=1.

Best regards

Michael


-- 
Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt. (Mailinglisten
ausgenommen)
I prefer GPG encryption of emails. (does not apply on mailing lists)



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] User WJtW - railway track counts

[Richard Mann]

I added track_detail=yes, to achieve much the same end. I haven't looked at
railway tagging for a while, though.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] User WJtW - railway track counts

[Colin Smale]

 

What is "track_detail=yes"? I can't find it anywhere in the (English)
wiki... 

//colin 

On 2015-10-07 11:11, Richard Mann wrote: 

> I added track_detail=yes, to achieve much the same end. I haven't looked at 
> railway tagging for a while, though. 
> 
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
 ___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] User WJtW - railway track counts

[Colin Smale]

 

Thanks for contacting DWG, Michael. 

It is not limited to tracks=2 by the way - I have seen examples of four
tracks, all with tracks=4... 

--colin 

On 2015-10-07 10:56, Michael Reichert wrote: 

> Hi.
> 
> Am 2015-10-07 um 10:03 schrieb Colin Smale: 
> 
>> I am not sure it would be vandalism - It is more likely a
>> misunderstanding of the intention of the tracks=* tag. But it is very
>> damaging, and potentially hard to revert as this has been going on for
>> some time and newer edits may have been made. It may need something like
>> this: 
>> 
>> * Get all changesets from WJtW
>> * get all railway tracks from those changesets with tracks>1
>> * search back through the history to find where the tag was added
>> * see if it was user WJtW that did it
>> * If so, remove the tracks=* tag.
> 
> I (a German railway mapper) have been notified by another user about
> WJtW's edits last week. I [1] have already started reverting parts of
> his edits. That's the way I did it:
> 
> - Search for railway=rail + tracks=2 via Overpass Turbo (with meta as
> output variant)
> - Pick out one way of the result. If its last edited was done by WJtW, I
> had a lookat the changeset which did this edit using Achavi. If the
> changeset was mostly adding of tracks=2, I reverted it. Sometimes I did
> partial reverts if only parts of the changeset were bad.
> - If the last edit of the way was done by another user, I had a look
> into the way's history and looked for the bad changeset(s) there.
> 
> You have to repeat this until the area which you are going to clean is
> free of tracks=2.
> 
> Note: If you are looking at the area between Dortmund and Cologne -
> there are lots of ways with tracks=2 from old times (about 4 to 7 years
> ago) because tracks=2 has not been removed when the second track was
> added to OSM.
> 
>> But in Dutch (as you will know) there is a wonderful expression about
>> trying to mop up (a flooded bathroom) while the tap is still running. We
>> need to turn the tap off and stop this getting any worse. 
>> 
>> It's starting to sound like a candidate for a user block until the user
>> engages in some kind of dialog.
> 
> I have asked DWG to block him (0-hour-block) because he has been
> notified about his errors several times:
> 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/34049497 (21 days ago in German)
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/34264606 (11 days ago in English)
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/34313237 (7 days ago in English)
> 
> It is not the first time that a user used tracks=2 the wrong way. There
> were/are users from time to time who add tracks=2 because there was a
> map by ITO rendering tracks=2. I asked the people from ITO to shut down
> this map a few days ago to prevent future abuse of tracks=2 as tagging
> for the renderer. I thank ITO for their quick reaction (the took the map
> offline). http://www.itoworld.com/map/group/1
> 
> Best regards
> 
> Michael aka Nakaner
> 
> [1] via my cleanup account Nakaner-repair
> 
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
 ___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] talk Digest, Vol 134, Issue 11

[kassy taylor]

Help

-Original Message-
From: "talk-requ...@openstreetmap.org" 
Sent: ‎10/‎7/‎2015 6:15 AM
To: "talk@openstreetmap.org" 
Subject: talk Digest, Vol 134, Issue 11

Send talk mailing list submissions to
talk@openstreetmap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-requ...@openstreetmap.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-ow...@openstreetmap.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of talk digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: User WJtW - railway track counts (Michael Reichert)
   2. Re: User WJtW - railway track counts (Richard Mann)
   3. Re: User WJtW - railway track counts (Colin Smale)
   4. Re: User WJtW - railway track counts (Colin Smale)


--

Message: 1
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 10:57:49 +0200
From: Michael Reichert 
To: talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] User WJtW - railway track counts
Message-ID: <5614de8d.3000...@gmx.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Hi,

Am 2015-10-07 um 10:24 schrieb Richard Mann:
> Putting tracks=1 on multiple parallel tracks is also potentially
> misleading. It's a method of tagging that's been superseded by drawing each
> line separately.
> 
> So I took to adding passenger_lines=N, to avoid a compatability conflict. I
> only did N=1 or N>=4, though.
> 
> I'd suggest converting the tagging to tracks=1+passenger_lines=2.

You can find the tag detail=track on lots of tracks in South-West
Germany instead of tracks=1.

Best regards

Michael


-- 
Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt. (Mailinglisten
ausgenommen)
I prefer GPG encryption of emails. (does not apply on mailing lists)

-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: 
<http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20151007/c662bd57/attachment-0001.sig>

--

Message: 2
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 10:11:46 +0100
From: Richard Mann 
To: Michael Reichert 
Cc: osm 
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] User WJtW - railway track counts
Message-ID:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

I added track_detail=yes, to achieve much the same end. I haven't looked at
railway tagging for a while, though.
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20151007/dd05cddf/attachment-0001.html>

--

Message: 3
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2015 11:19:07 +0200
From: Colin Smale 
To: talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] User WJtW - railway track counts
Message-ID: 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

 

What is "track_detail=yes"? I can't find it anywhere in the (English)
wiki... 

//colin 

On 2015-10-07 11:11, Richard Mann wrote: 

> I added track_detail=yes, to achieve much the same end. I haven't looked at 
> railway tagging for a while, though. 
> 
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
 
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20151007/bf9adfe4/attachment-0001.html>

--

Message: 4
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2015 11:20:57 +0200
From: Colin Smale 
To: talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] User WJtW - railway track counts
Message-ID: 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

 

Thanks for contacting DWG, Michael. 

It is not limited to tracks=2 by the way - I have seen examples of four
tracks, all with tracks=4... 

--colin 

On 2015-10-07 10:56, Michael Reichert wrote: 

> Hi.
> 
> Am 2015-10-07 um 10:03 schrieb Colin Smale: 
> 
>> I am not sure it would be vandalism - It is more likely a
>> misunderstanding of the intention of the tracks=* tag. But it is very
>> damaging, and potentially hard to revert as this has been going on for
>> some time and newer edits may have been made. It may need something like
>> this: 
>> 
>> * Get all changesets from WJtW
>> * get all railway tracks from those changesets with tracks>1
>> * search back through the history to find where the tag was added
>> * see if it was user WJtW that did it
>> * If so, remove the tracks=* tag.
> 
> I (a German railway mapper) have been notified by another user about
> WJtW's edits last week. I [1] have already st

[OSM-talk] Bus Routes

[Clifford Snow]

I'm trying to add my first bus route. I'm struggling to understand how to
properly add the relation. The route, like most bus routes, loops back over
the same ways. So my questions:

If the bus travels over the same way going two different directions, is the
way added twice to the relationship, which means ignoring the JOSM warning
message? Or is the way only entered once with just no forward/backward
direction?

Are there any good tutorials to add bus routes?

Thanks,
Clifford


-- 
@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Bus Routes

[Andrew Errington]

I am keen to know the right answer.  Last time I tried it I ended up
creating two routes.  One for outbound, and one for inbound.  Having both
together in the same relation was a bit claustrophobic.  I think I found a
discussion somewhere which resulted in the same conclusion, but I can't
remember where.

Best wishes,

Andrew

(That reminds me, our local bus terminal has moved, so I have to un-pick
the bit of the routes that went to the old location and re-direct them to
the new one)

On 8 October 2015 at 11:12, Clifford Snow  wrote:

> I'm trying to add my first bus route. I'm struggling to understand how to
> properly add the relation. The route, like most bus routes, loops back over
> the same ways. So my questions:
>
> If the bus travels over the same way going two different directions, is
> the way added twice to the relationship, which means ignoring the JOSM
> warning message? Or is the way only entered once with just no
> forward/backward direction?
>
> Are there any good tutorials to add bus routes?
>
> Thanks,
> Clifford
>
>
> --
> @osm_seattle
> osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
> OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Bus Routes

[Eduardo]

El 07/10/2015 8:12 pm, Clifford Snow escribió:

I'm trying to add my first bus route. I'm struggling to understand how
to properly add the relation. The route, like most bus routes, loops
back over the same ways. So my questions:

If the bus travels over the same way going two different directions,
is the way added twice to the relationship, which means ignoring the
JOSM warning message? Or is the way only entered once with just no
forward/backward direction?


Adding the way to the relation twice, in the proper order, is what makes 
more
sense to me. Of course, only if the bus travels over it twice in the 
same

direction of travel (either outwards or returning).


Are there any good tutorials to add bus routes?


I cannot point to one. I had to learn it the hard way.



Eduardo

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Bus Routes

[Jo]

Hi,

I wrote something about it here:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Polyglot/diary/28401

It's written as a reaction to how the stops are mapped in Germany. The way
I see it, the nodes next to the ways are the more important ones, so they
are the ones that get added to the route relations and they are the ones
with all the details.

It's my impression that in Germany the stop posiiton nodes (which are part
of the highways) get all the details. Or sometimes both the platforms and
the stop_positions, which I tried to avoid for simplicity (of maintenance).

Anyway, I created a MapCSS style for visualising it more clearly and
several scripts, but they are most useful if the data of the operators is
available.

I also requested an improvement to JOSM. In expert mode, it's now possible
to sort the ways from 'this point forward'. (so leaving alone all the
members above).

There is one thing I do differently now compared to the period I recorded
those videos. All the platform nodes now go first, then the ways in the
order the bus or tram travels along them. If the bus passes the same
stretch of road twice, it will be in the route relation twice, showing up
red. This doesn't happen very often for trams, but it's a lot more frequent
for buses than one would expect.

Polyglot

2015-10-08 5:28 GMT+02:00 Eduardo :

> El 07/10/2015 8:12 pm, Clifford Snow escribió:
>
>> I'm trying to add my first bus route. I'm struggling to understand how
>> to properly add the relation. The route, like most bus routes, loops
>> back over the same ways. So my questions:
>>
>> If the bus travels over the same way going two different directions,
>> is the way added twice to the relationship, which means ignoring the
>> JOSM warning message? Or is the way only entered once with just no
>> forward/backward direction?
>>
>
> Adding the way to the relation twice, in the proper order, is what makes
> more
> sense to me. Of course, only if the bus travels over it twice in the same
> direction of travel (either outwards or returning).
>
> Are there any good tutorials to add bus routes?
>>
>
> I cannot point to one. I had to learn it the hard way.
>
>
>
> Eduardo
>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Find missing roads

[Russ Nelson]

Martijn van Exel writes:
 > Hi all,
 > 
 > Our OSM team cooked up something new. A missing roads plugin for JOSM. I
 > think it's pretty nice but I would really like to hear what you think.

Something's wrong -- there aren't any missing roads in NY (anymore)!!

-- 
--my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com
Crynwr supports open source software
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | Sheepdog   

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Bus Routes

[Maarten Deen]

On 2015-10-08 04:12, Clifford Snow wrote:

I'm trying to add my first bus route. I'm struggling to understand how
to properly add the relation. The route, like most bus routes, loops
back over the same ways. So my questions:

If the bus travels over the same way going two different directions,
is the way added twice to the relationship, which means ignoring the
JOSM warning message? Or is the way only entered once with just no
forward/backward direction?

Are there any good tutorials to add bus routes?


Have you read http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Buses , 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Public_transport#Buses and 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Public_Transport 
(which I think should be featured more officially, not in a proposed 
features page)?


The way I do it (and in no way am I saying it is the only way or the 
correct way to do it, but it seems to hold up fine) is make one relation 
for each seperate destination (usually two: a->b and b->a, sometimes 4: 
a->c->b, a->d->b, b->c->a and b->d->a) and group those relations in a 
master relation. The master relations get grouped in a (master-master) 
relation that holds all buslines for one concession.


Each bus relation has all the ways the bus traverses, and if it 
doublebacks on itself somewhere, I add the way twice. JOSM will 
highlight those ways in red in the relation editor, is that the warning 
you describe?
Then add all the stops in correct order with role "stop". If you order 
the ways and nodes in the relation editor, JOSM will put the stops 
first.
I believe officially you should only add nodes with 
"public_transport=stop_position", but in absence of those I also add 
"highway=bus_stop" (or even tag those with 
"public_transport=stop_position" which is not entirely correct).


As an example, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/398909

Regards,
Maarten

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk