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

[Dave F.]

I'm unsure of the difference between passenger_lines=* & tracks=*.

Reading the wiki page, it appears the writer is confused as well, 
stating in the last paragraph, that the 'passenger' bit is redundant as 
"all kinds of tracks connecting the same railway stations or junction 
should be counted with no regard to the train services running on it." & 
it's a "workaround" for tracks.


Cheers
Dave F.



On 07/10/2015 09:24, Richard Mann wrote:
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 It's a method of tagging that's been superseded by drawing 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




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

[Richard Mann]

Goods-only and empty-coaching-stock lines can be markedly lower-spec (such
that they cannot be used by passenger-carrying services), and are
effectively a subsidiary system. There aren't all that many examples left
in the UK.

On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 12:02 PM, Dave F.  wrote:

> I'm unsure of the difference between passenger_lines=* & tracks=*.
>
> Reading the wiki page, it appears the writer is confused as well, stating
> in the last paragraph, that the 'passenger' bit is redundant as "all kinds
> of tracks connecting the same railway stations or junction should be
> counted with no regard to the train services running on it." & it's a
> "workaround" for tracks.
>
> Cheers
> Dave F.
>
>
>
> On 07/10/2015 09:24, Richard Mann wrote:
>
> 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 
> listtalk@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>
>
>
> --
> [image: Avast logo] 
>
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> www.avast.com 
>
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Missing Roads data dumps

[Martijn van Exel]

Hi all,

After two weeks almost 10% of missing road tiles have been resolved. Pretty
nice! Thanks for checking out the tool. Continue to send me your ideas for
improvement, or go to http://bit.ly/missing-roads-feedback to post it there.

We decided also to release the data behind the tool - as of a few days ago
we have been posting daily dumps. See my diary entry for more info:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/mvexel/diary/36126. Let me know if you
find it useful.

Happy mapping --
Martijn
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

[Warin]

A local railway corridor is having a third track added specifically to 
carry freight. It can also carry passengers but that would be an 
exception.  It may have a 'lower-spec' for smoothness .. but in all 
other regards it has at least the same speck.
There is some political pressure to encourage the use of railway rather 
than road services for carriage of freight.
Most of the longer Australian railway lines carry far more freight than 
passengers, and the lines are significantly less comfortable for 
passengers due to it!
I'd not recommend any of the longer Australian railway passenger trips 
if you want some comfort.


As far as tagging goes I would not distinguish between then .. both can 
be used for the other when required.


On 16/10/2015 10:10 PM, Richard Mann wrote:
Goods-only and empty-coaching-stock lines can be markedly lower-spec 
(such that they cannot be used by passenger-carrying services), and 
are effectively a subsidiary system. There aren't all that many 
examples left in the UK.


On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 12:02 PM, Dave F. > wrote:


I'm unsure of the difference between passenger_lines=* & tracks=*.

Reading the wiki page, it appears the writer is confused as well,
stating in the last paragraph, that the 'passenger' bit is
redundant as "all kinds of tracks connecting the same railway
stations or junction should be counted with no regard to the train
services running on it." & it's a "workaround" for tracks.

Cheers
Dave F.




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

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

[Paul Johnson]

Not even sure how passenger_lines=* is even a tag given route=rail
relations...

On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 6:02 AM, Dave F.  wrote:

> I'm unsure of the difference between passenger_lines=* & tracks=*.
>
> Reading the wiki page, it appears the writer is confused as well, stating
> in the last paragraph, that the 'passenger' bit is redundant as "all kinds
> of tracks connecting the same railway stations or junction should be
> counted with no regard to the train services running on it." & it's a
> "workaround" for tracks.
>
> Cheers
> Dave F.
>
>
>
>
> On 07/10/2015 09:24, Richard Mann wrote:
>
> 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 
> listtalk@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>
>
>
> --
> [image: Avast logo] 
>
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> www.avast.com 
>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Map key

[Andrew Hain]

I am having a look at the map key for the standard layer and I am finding a
number of loose ends.

One obvious issue is that the key is sometimes out of date: for instance it
distinguishes between forest and wood but the style sheet no longer does so.

The key talks about trunk, primary and secondary roads but this is just OSM
database keywords left exposed; these words have local meanings in some
countries that OSM differs from. It might be better to have an entry for
main roads using as many colours as are displayed at the zoom level in a
single row, which among other things saves space on mobile devices.

We also have an opportunity to add some more entries for further features
and to sort important stuff to the top.

--
Andrew


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

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

[Michael Reichert]

Hi Paul,

Am 2015-10-16 um 22:58 schrieb Paul Johnson:
> Not even sure how passenger_lines=* is even a tag given route=rail
> relations...

As far as I know, passenger_lines=* is intended as an tracks=*
replacement if each track is mapped. There is an ITO map which renders
passenger_lines=*. There has also been a map for tracks=* but I have ask
ITO to shut it down because of wrong usage of the tracks=* key as WJtW did.

http://www.itoworld.com/map/231

I myself think that we do not need a passenger_lines=* tag and I do not
care about this tag. I think that such a information (number of parallel
tracks) might be extracted from existing OSM tracks without an
additional key. passenger_lines=* is fragile because not all users know
of its existence if they add a new built track.

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

[OSM-talk] weekly 273 - 10/06/2015 – 10/12/2015

[Manfred A. Reiter]

The weekly round-up of OSM news, issue # 273, is now available online in
English, giving as always a summary of all things happening in the
openstreetmap world: http://www.weeklyosm.eu Enjoy! weeklyOSM is brought to
you by ... https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM

-- 
## Manfred Reiter - -
## www.weeklyOSM.eu
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

[Richard Mann]

If someone wants to continue this discussion on the public transport list,
feel free to start a discussion there. It's not appropriate for this list.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

[Dave F.]

It would be great if you'd invite the transit guys to join in this 
discussion here.


Dave F.

On 16/10/2015 23:24, Richard Mann wrote:
If someone wants to continue this discussion on the public transport 
list, feel free to start a discussion there. It's not appropriate for 
this list.



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




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk