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

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

[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

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

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

[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

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

[Colin Smale]

 

He has a new hobby - maxweight and maxheight on roads. Sounds harmless
enough, but I am a bit concerned about things like tagging a way with
traffic_sign=maxheight - not quite what is intended. 

Example changeset: http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/34572136 

//colin 

On 2015-10-12 12:14, Maarten Deen wrote: 

> On 2015-10-12 12:05, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2015-10-12 11:09 GMT+02:00 
> Colin Smale :
> 
> about the sources of the other information (electrification info,
> usage etc), maybe it's inside info, maybe it's a guess, or maybe he
> is just widely-travelled. 
> not sure about usage, but electrification can often be seen in aerial
> imagery (where hires).

And what voltage/frequency is common knowledge. At least, I don't
suppose OSM rules dictate that you can only enter that when you have
actually measured the voltage with a multimeter :D
You only need some local knowledge at places where two electrification
systems meet to map where exactly the change is.
Same goes for gauge. Pretty much all mainline railwaytrack in Europe
(except the Iberian peninsula and Russia) is 1435mm and usually people
who know about railways also know where narrowgauge track is used.

Maarten

___
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]

 

You forgot Switzerland, where they not only have multiple gauges but
multiple supply systems, including 3-phase. 

On 2015-10-12 12:14, Maarten Deen wrote: 

> On 2015-10-12 12:05, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2015-10-12 11:09 GMT+02:00 
> Colin Smale :
> 
> about the sources of the other information (electrification info,
> usage etc), maybe it's inside info, maybe it's a guess, or maybe he
> is just widely-travelled. 
> not sure about usage, but electrification can often be seen in aerial
> imagery (where hires).

And what voltage/frequency is common knowledge. At least, I don't
suppose OSM rules dictate that you can only enter that when you have
actually measured the voltage with a multimeter :D
You only need some local knowledge at places where two electrification
systems meet to map where exactly the change is.
Same goes for gauge. Pretty much all mainline railwaytrack in Europe
(except the Iberian peninsula and Russia) is 1435mm and usually people
who know about railways also know where narrowgauge track is used.

Maarten

___
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

[Paul Johnson]

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 4:09 AM, Colin Smale  wrote:
>
> I noticed he has unblocked himself and is working again, but in the
> new changeset I looked at yesterday "tracks=N" was no longer being added.
> Still not sure about the sources of the other information (electrification
> info, usage etc), maybe it's inside info, maybe it's a guess, or maybe he
> is just widely-travelled. It is certainly spread widely across Europe.
>
I haven't looked at the profile in question but I'd be willing to err on
"new but somewhat shy/embarrassed/not-comfortable-with-English" but
well-travelled (or at least reasonably competent with an aerial)
individual.  Everyone's prone to a bit of quirkiness, but it sounds like
this user may have got the point.

I'd be more concerned with the persistent individual that keeps creating
hundreds of throwaways in the US to add individual POIs on behalf of
businesses and seems to be largely ignorant of accepted tagging,
unresponsive, and pervasive lately.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

[Maarten Deen]

On 2015-10-12 12:05, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

2015-10-12 11:09 GMT+02:00 Colin Smale :


about the sources of the other information (electrification info,
usage etc), maybe it's inside info, maybe it's a guess, or maybe he
is just widely-travelled.


not sure about usage, but electrification can often be seen in aerial
imagery (where hires).


And what voltage/frequency is common knowledge. At least, I don't 
suppose OSM rules dictate that you can only enter that when you have 
actually measured the voltage with a multimeter :D
You only need some local knowledge at places where two electrification 
systems meet to map where exactly the change is.
Same goes for gauge. Pretty much all mainline railwaytrack in Europe 
(except the Iberian peninsula and Russia) is 1435mm and usually people 
who know about railways also know where narrowgauge track is used.


Maarten

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

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-10-12 11:09 GMT+02:00 Colin Smale :

> about the sources of the other information (electrification info, usage
> etc), maybe it's inside info, maybe it's a guess, or maybe he is just
> widely-travelled.



not sure about usage, but electrification can often be seen in aerial
imagery (where hires).

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

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

[Colin Smale]

 

Same here, very similar message and very similar response 

I noticed he has unblocked himself and is working again, but in the new
changeset I looked at yesterday "tracks=N" was no longer being added.
Still not sure about the sources of the other information
(electrification info, usage etc), maybe it's inside info, maybe it's a
guess, or maybe he is just widely-travelled. It is certainly spread
widely across Europe. 

//colin 

On 2015-10-12 10:50, Maarten Deen wrote: 

> I have received a private message from the user:
> 
>> Hoi Maarten,
>> 
>> Met het aantal tracks wordt aangegeven het aantal sporen die parallel aan 
>> elkaar liggen.
>> 
>> Tracks=1 = Enkelspoor Tracks=2 = Dubbelspoor Tracks=3 = Driesporig Tracks=4 
>> = Viersporig
>> 
>> Mvgr,
>> 
>> Wim
> 
> Translated: 
> 
>> The number of tracks indicates the number of railwaytracks that are parellel 
>> to each other
>> 
>> Tracks=1 = singletrack Tracks=2 = doubletrack Tracks=3 = three tracks 
>> Tracks=4 = four tracks.
> 
> I have replied to him that this is not how the key should be used and that 
> you only use the key when railways are mapped with one way for all the tracks.
> 
> Regards,
> Maarten
> 
> ___
> 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

[Maarten Deen]

I have received a private message from the user:


Hoi Maarten,

Met het aantal tracks wordt aangegeven het aantal sporen die parallel 
aan elkaar liggen.


Tracks=1 = Enkelspoor Tracks=2 = Dubbelspoor Tracks=3 = Driesporig 
Tracks=4 = Viersporig


Mvgr,

Wim



Translated:
The number of tracks indicates the number of railwaytracks that are 
parellel to each other


Tracks=1 = singletrack Tracks=2 = doubletrack Tracks=3 = three tracks 
Tracks=4 = four tracks.


I have replied to him that this is not how the key should be used and 
that you only use the key when railways are mapped with one way for all 
the tracks.


Regards,
Maarten


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

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

[Michael Reichert]

Hi Colin,

Am 2015-10-10 um 14:07 schrieb Colin Smale:
> Oh by the way, user WJtW is still at it, most recently in Italy, filling
> in loads of detail tags on railways. No idea where the information comes
> from. But every segment he touches has tracks=N added, often with N>1 on
> routes already mapped with individual tracks. 
> 
> @Michael Reichart, did you get a response from DWG about a possible
> block on this user? 

DWG waited until he restarted editing (he took a break of three days)
but now he has been blocked.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/819

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

[Colin Smale]

 

Oh by the way, user WJtW is still at it, most recently in Italy, filling
in loads of detail tags on railways. No idea where the information comes
from. But every segment he touches has tracks=N added, often with N>1 on
routes already mapped with individual tracks. 

@Michael Reichart, did you get a response from DWG about a possible
block on this user? 

//colin 

On 2015-10-10 13:46, Colin Smale wrote: 

> Exactly, this is the core of the "complaint" about WJtW's work. 
> 
> However, tracks=* is an accepted shortcut, somewhere between a single way for 
> the whole group and mapping individual tracks. Getting the individual tracks 
> right, with all the points/switches, sidings, crossovers etc is a helluva 
> job. It is no surprise that people use a single way for a group of tracks as 
> a first-order approximation. Adding tracks=N to that is not wrong, it's just 
> incomplete. 
> 
> //colin 
> 
> On 2015-10-10 13:37, Paul Johnson wrote: 
> 
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 2:20 AM, Colin Smale  wrote: 
> 
> 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. 
> tracks=* shouldn't be used, the tracks should be mapped individually.  You 
> can't change tracks arbitrarily like you can change lanes, much the same way 
> one can't change carriageways arbitrarily.

___
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]

 

Exactly, this is the core of the "complaint" about WJtW's work. 

However, tracks=* is an accepted shortcut, somewhere between a single
way for the whole group and mapping individual tracks. Getting the
individual tracks right, with all the points/switches, sidings,
crossovers etc is a helluva job. It is no surprise that people use a
single way for a group of tracks as a first-order approximation. Adding
tracks=N to that is not wrong, it's just incomplete. 

//colin 

On 2015-10-10 13:37, Paul Johnson wrote: 

> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 2:20 AM, Colin Smale  wrote: 
> 
>> 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.
> 
> tracks=* shouldn't be used, the tracks should be mapped individually.  You 
> can't change tracks arbitrarily like you can change lanes, much the same way 
> one can't change carriageways arbitrarily.
 ___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

[Paul Johnson]

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 2:20 AM, Colin Smale  wrote:
>
> 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.
>
tracks=* shouldn't be used, the tracks should be mapped individually.  You
can't change tracks arbitrarily like you can change lanes, much the same
way one can't change carriageways arbitrarily.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

[Russ Nelson]

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

It could be worse: you could see three tracks, all with tracks=4. :-)

-- 
--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] 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] 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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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