[Talk-GB] Things that aren't stations tagged railway=station
Hi All, In making my recent transport map[1] I've found there's a (relatively) large number of nodes in the UK tagged railway=station, when they aren't stations (and often aren't any railways there, either). I'm proposing that we don't tag former, disused or fictional stations in a way that confuses mainstream users of OSM, in the same way we don't tag proposed motorways as highway=motorway. I realise that there are additional tags to try to indicate that they don't exist (such as disused=yes) but I don't think this is a particularly useful approach, given the near infinite numbers of extra tags that could be thought up for fictional, planned, was-planned-not-built-not-planned-any-more etc stations. Even the wiki page for disused=yes suggests it's a bad idea[2], and that some other backwards-compatible approach would be better. We have a backwards-compatible approach for the disused and abandoned railway lines already. Would there be objections to changing the situation with UK railway stations to bring it into line with highways/railway lines, e.g. railway=disused, disused=station , or e.g. railway=abandoned, abandoned=station? It's such a niche interest (well, seemingly much less niche in the UK than elsewhere :-) ) that I don't think it helps to tag things in their current scheme. I don't think this is particularly controversial (my suggestions mirror the approach for both highways and railway lines already), I've discussed it already with a handful of people who have used the old approach, but I thought it best to air it here too. Cheers, Andy [1] http://www.gravitystorm.co.uk/shine/archives/2011/04/11/transport-map/ [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:disused ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Things that aren't stations tagged railway=station
On 19 April 2011 09:21, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote: I realise that there are additional tags to try to indicate that they don't exist (such as disused=yes) but I don't think this is a particularly useful approach I completely agree. As a fellow data user, I think the rule of thumb should be that anything tagged as railway=station or shop=baker or amenity=bank should be a an open, functioning station, baker or bank. You shouldn't have to check a potentially ever-expanding set of additional tags to find out if they are in fact closed, proposed, imaginary, an art installation, etc. Would there be objections to changing the situation with UK railway stations to bring it into line with highways/railway lines, e.g. railway=disused, disused=station , or e.g. railway=abandoned, abandoned=station? Sounds good to me. Tom -- http://tom.acrewoods.net http://twitter.com/tom_chance ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Things that aren't stations tagged railway=station
I agree Cheers Bob --- On Tue, 19/4/11, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote: From: Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com Subject: [Talk-GB] Things that aren't stations tagged railway=station To: Talk-GB talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Date: Tuesday, 19 April, 2011, 8:21 Hi All, In making my recent transport map[1] I've found there's a (relatively) large number of nodes in the UK tagged railway=station, when they aren't stations (and often aren't any railways there, either). I'm proposing that we don't tag former, disused or fictional stations in a way that confuses mainstream users of OSM, in the same way we don't tag proposed motorways as highway=motorway. I realise that there are additional tags to try to indicate that they don't exist (such as disused=yes) but I don't think this is a particularly useful approach, given the near infinite numbers of extra tags that could be thought up for fictional, planned, was-planned-not-built-not-planned-any-more etc stations. Even the wiki page for disused=yes suggests it's a bad idea[2], and that some other backwards-compatible approach would be better. We have a backwards-compatible approach for the disused and abandoned railway lines already. Would there be objections to changing the situation with UK railway stations to bring it into line with highways/railway lines, e.g. railway=disused, disused=station , or e.g. railway=abandoned, abandoned=station? It's such a niche interest (well, seemingly much less niche in the UK than elsewhere :-) ) that I don't think it helps to tag things in their current scheme. I don't think this is particularly controversial (my suggestions mirror the approach for both highways and railway lines already), I've discussed it already with a handful of people who have used the old approach, but I thought it best to air it here too. Cheers, Andy [1] http://www.gravitystorm.co.uk/shine/archives/2011/04/11/transport-map/ [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:disused ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Things that aren't stations tagged railway=station
Andy Allan gravitystorm@... writes: In making my recent transport map[1] I've found there's a (relatively) large number of nodes in the UK tagged railway=station, when they aren't stations I realise that there are additional tags to try to indicate that they don't exist (such as disused=yes) but I don't think this is a particularly useful approach, I thoroughly agree. It's not just stations: any kind of extra oh no it isn't tag makes life difficult for users of the data. I've even seen status=desire to indicate that a path doesn't exist, but it would be nice if it did... Any unambiguous tagging scheme you can think of would be fine. (railway=abandoned_station would also be possible) -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Things that aren't stations tagged railway=station
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: I've even seen status=desire to indicate that a path doesn't exist, but it would be nice if it did... Ed, you might be mis-understanding the meaning of that tag. Desire paths do very much exist on the ground and don't fall into the same category as abandoned or proposed railway stations. Here's a description, and a nice photo, of a desire path: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desire_path ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Things that aren't stations tagged railway=station
80n 80n80n@... writes: I've even seen status=desire Here's a description, and a nice photo, of a desire path: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desire_path Ah, you're right. I'm glad I didn't try to retag it. -- Ed Avis e...@waniassset.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Things that aren't stations tagged railway=station
Any unambiguous tagging scheme you can think of would be fine. (railway=abandoned_station would also be possible) This variant has the added benefit that it would make it into most current rendering databases for free. Data users that do want to show this, don't have to do anything special to their import stages. Using a key suffix (railway:disused=*) would mean extra work. Granted, as a maintainer of a few maps, I'm biased. I just detest those negating tags. This is a $shazbaz. Oh, no, it isn't! -- Lennard ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Things that aren't stations tagged railway=station
Lennard wrote: Any unambiguous tagging scheme you can think of would be fine. (railway=abandoned_station would also be possible) This variant has the added benefit that it would make it into most current rendering databases for free. Data users that do want to show this, don't have to do anything special to their import stages. Using a key suffix (railway:disused=*) would mean extra work. Additionally it does allow for the growing number of lines and stations that are being re-opened ;) Broadway near me is currently abandoned but IS being restored as part of the Gloucestershire railway and the track is slowly working it's way up the old abandoned line ... But a part that may be useful in the UK is cleaner identification of preserved over main line railway stations? -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk// Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Things that aren't stations tagged railway=station
Hi, On 04/19/11 11:10, Lennard wrote: Granted, as a maintainer of a few maps, I'm biased. I just detest those negating tags. This is a $shazbaz. Oh, no, it isn't! It's often natural language that makes people do that. For example, people say: This is a railway line under construction, or this is an abandoned railway line which implies that the object is first and foremost a railway line, with some attributes - when in fact it is *not* a railway line, but a construction site, and so on. Bye Frederik ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Things that aren't stations tagged railway=station
On 19 April 2011 10:30, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote: Lennard wrote: Any unambiguous tagging scheme you can think of would be fine. (railway=abandoned_station would also be possible) This variant has the added benefit that it would make it into most current rendering databases for free. Data users that do want to show this, don't have to do anything special to their import stages. Using a key suffix (railway:disused=*) would mean extra work. Additionally it does allow for the growing number of lines and stations that are being re-opened ;) Broadway near me is currently abandoned but IS being restored as part of the Gloucestershire railway and the track is slowly working it's way up the old abandoned line ... But a part that may be useful in the UK is cleaner identification of preserved over main line railway stations? I have been using the prefix 'construction:' and 'proposed:' on tags to indicate that something is in the process of changing and there may also be a role for 'former:'. For example tags on part of the M25 which is being widened: lanes=3 construction:lanes=4 And on the A11 where one carriageway is being demoted to a minor two-way road: highway=trunk; oneway=yes; proposed:highway=unclassified proposed:oneway=no It would seem logical to include the status of 'former' elements in the same way. So a former station would be tagged using as follows: former:railway=station The lifecycle of a feature would then be. proposed:railway=station construction:railway=station railway=station former:railway=station Regards, Peter -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk// Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
