Re: [Talk-transit] Historic railways and route=train - is this good practice?

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-transit]

2 Sep 2021, 20:08 by skqu...@rushpost.com:

> On 9/2/21 12:03, Tony Shield wrote:
>
>> Guys
>>
>> Wandering through OPNVKarte I noted a railway line running through
>> Kielder Water - an impossibility, further investigation showed the
>> railway ways as abandoned or razed and part of a relation
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8213509/history , the Riccarton
>> and Hexham railway. I suspect it was being rendered due to the
>> route=train tag being set in the relation even though state=abandoned is
>> present.
>>
>> There is a similar rendering for the similarly abandoned Solway Junction
>> Railway -
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9220571#map=11/54.9165/-3.2530=O
>>
>>
>> As these two railways have long being extinct is it correct for them to
>> be route=train which I regards as current use,  or should they be a new
>> thing such as route=historic?
>>
>
> My gut reaction is to say this doesn't belong in OSM at all, but rather
> OpenHistoricalMap or a similar project.
>
 If there are no traces of such route(route, not rails) I think that 
deletionwould be a good idea.

Though I would try to contact authors ofa relation via changeset comments.

Sadly, some people incorrectly map railstuff that is completely, utterly and 
fullygone in OpenStreetMap instead of 
OpenHistoricalMap___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

Re: [Talk-transit] station=tram in Berlin

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-transit]

I would delete such objects.

If someone really want to represent entire 
stop, then there is public_transport=stop_area
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5746202 


Though I would rather ask local community
(Berling or Germany in general)

Dec 7, 2020, 17:10 by talk-transit@openstreetmap.org:

> Hello, mappers!
>
> I’ve noticed that some objects with
>
> railway=halt/station + station=tram
>
> tagging were created recently in Berlin. I know it's uncommon to tag tram 
> stops as railway stations. Overpass query
>
> [out:xml];
> nwr[station=tram];
> out geom;
>
> reveals only 109 such objects worldwide, half of which were created recently 
> in Berlin by two users. Typical example is the node > 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8178939810/history#map=19/52.50528/13.61336
>
> Please give your judgement about the situation.
>
> —
> Best regards,
> Alexey [ azakh-world ],
> Maps.me team
>

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

Re: [Talk-transit] bus=yes opinion

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-transit]

Ad thread) bus=yes is not needed if
highway=bus_stop is present

Also public_transport=platform is not
needed anyway, like entire failed pt2
19 paź 2020, 17:54 od mikl...@gmail.com:

> On Saturday, 11 July 2020 23:30:29 HKT Snusmumriken wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 2020-07-11 at 02:33 -0300, Agustin Rissoli wrote:
>> > What are your opinion of adding bus=yes along with
>> > public_transport=platform + highway=bus_stop?
>>
>> In the presence of highway=bus_stop I think the bus_yes tag is
>> totally unnecessary.
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-transit mailing list
>> Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
>>
>
> I consider the following scenario:
>
> 1. There is no physical stop but it is a generally accepted place to board 
> and 
> alight buses. I map public_transport=platform and bus=yes but not 
> highway=bus_stop
>
> 2. There is a physical bus stop pole but there are no longer any buses using 
> it. I only map highway=bus_stop but not bus=yes there.
>
> Michael
>
> -- 
> Sent from KMail
>

In my opinion:Ad 1) it is also highway=bus_stopAd 2) that would be 
disused:highway=bus_stop
___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

Re: [Talk-transit] Bus routes in Málaga: Should we add "stop_area" relations?

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-transit]

Jul 18, 2020, 19:17 by dcapil...@gmail.com:

> Hi!
>
> I'll try to check the bus routes in Malagá. [1] I haven't checked them for a 
> long time because I have been busy with other mapping tasks and because there 
> were many changes in the central area of Málaga. The bus routes changed too 
> often. Now it seems to be stabilizing, there are less and less changes, and I 
> thought it would be a good time to check the mapping. I'd like to ask you 
> something first.
>
> When we started mapping the bus routes in Málaga, Alan Grant and I came to 
> the conclusion that it was not necessary to add "stop_area" relations due to 
> the type of bus stops in Málaga, [2] where there are no actual stop areas 
> (only a stop position in the own road and a pole on the sidewalk usually).
>
> Is that solution correct? Should we add "stop_area" relations at every bus 
> stop position? I would have to create a lot of additional relations, only 
> with the stop position and the platform features. I am not sure if that would 
> be reasonable/useful for any purpose. What do you think?
>
highway=bus_stop node is typically sole useful and needed part of mapping bus 
stop

(additional tags on this node, starting from name are obviously useful)

stop_position, stop_areas and so on are generally not useful, except extremely 
rare cases

I would rather map bus routes than and do other OSM mapping over pointless 
duplicating
of information available thanks to highway=bus_stop
___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

Re: [Talk-transit] bus stop name

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-transit]

Jul 17, 2020, 03:15 by talk-transit@openstreetmap.org:

>     In the USA bus stops (flag stops) are located for the most part at named 
> intersections, that is at where the street
>  
> sign is.
>  
>    so you DO know where you are. but on the OSM standard map the bus stop tag 
> depending on the
>  
> editor does not show the route number, can you have the route number on the 
> tag ?
>  
> ​​​the wiki on this seems to be written for a European standard.
>  
>  
>  
>
You can change layer of map (cake / paper sheets button on the right)
and select 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/47.60203/-122.32333=T
or
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/47.60203/-122.32333=O
both showing bus lines.
___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

Re: [Talk-transit] bus=yes opinion

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-transit]

It is useless but harm is minimal - just a pointless tag. As long as mapper is 
not removing
actually used highway=bus_stop it should be OK.

Jul 11, 2020, 07:33 by aguztin...@gmail.com:

> What are your opinion of adding bus=yes along with public_transport=platform 
> + highway=bus_stop?
> I can't find info on the wiki that supports this practice, I know it was 
> introduced by iD, but I don't see where this has been discussed.
> My question arises because there is only one user who is adding bus=yes (and 
> train=yes on railway platforms, etc.), to all stops in Argentina, probably 
> correcting the errors that iD marks.
>
>
> Saludos, Agustín.
>
>

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

Re: [Talk-transit] bus=yes opinion

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-transit]

And I in turn consider public_transport tag family as adding nothing useful and
encouraging pointless duplication.

I would be happy to consider them as deprecated, but I am not sure is there a 
clear support
for that.

And I am certain that most of people would be against deprecating 
highway=bus_stop

Introducing public_transport scheme was a mistake, but introducing it while 
keeping
simpler one made no sense at all.

Jul 11, 2020, 10:31 by ro...@daeneke.at:

> If the highway=bus_stop tag is also being used, it seems quite redundant to 
> me. But I would be all for killing that old tag and only using the new p_t 
> scheme (which sadly was proposed as additional instead of the new norm) and 
> then it would be useful to have the mode=yes tags, as long as the platform is 
> not assigned to at least one route relation. As soon as one eg. bus route 
> contains the platform, the bus=yes is implied and hence redundant. But that 
> would just be my view. 
>
> (The p_t scheme would need a new, forced version that fixes such required 
> double taggings, but that is a topic for another time.)
>
> KR
> RobinD (emergency99)
>
>> Am 11.07.2020 um 07:35 schrieb Agustin Rissoli :
>>
>> 
>> What are your opinion of adding bus=yes along with public_transport=platform 
>> + highway=bus_stop?
>> I can't find info on the wiki that supports this practice, I know it was 
>> introduced by iD, but I don't see where this has been discussed.
>> My question arises because there is only one user who is adding bus=yes (and 
>> train=yes on railway platforms, etc.), to all stops in Argentina, probably 
>> correcting the errors that iD marks.
>>
>>
>> Saludos, Agustín.
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-transit mailing list
>> Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
>>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-transit mailing list
> Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
>

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

Re: [Talk-transit] Making bus lines more specific

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-transit]

Apr 28, 2020, 22:53 by mailingli...@iivq.net:

> Hello Robin,
>
> I highly agree with you.
> The main reason for PTv2 not having as widespread adoption as it could have 
> is that it is not rendered, that is to say, it is not rendered on OSM_carto 
> (Osmand's rendering of PTv2 is near-perfect).
>
Note that approved PTv2 proposal had explicit

"This proposal does not replace, deprecate or obsolete the already existing and 
well known tags. The usage of the proposed tags is recommended but not 
mandatory."

bus=yes was supposed to be added only to public_transport=stop_position

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/Public_Transport=625726#Platform

Following approved PTv2 proposal requires using highway=bus_stop to identify 
public_transport=platform as bus stop.


And public_transport=platform + bus=yes is neither approved nor more popular 
than highway=bus_stop.

And, at least in my opinion, it is also worse tagging scheme than simple 
highway=bus_stop.

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

Re: [Talk-transit] Importing GTFS feed stops in Belo Horizonte, Brazil

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-transit]

Mar 18, 2020, 15:44 by rockyt...@gmail.com:

> Well, the city website claims it's CC-BY (version not specified), but I
> believe all GTFS feeds are free to use, as it is a requirement of the
> spec, no?
>
Even if that is requirement of the spec (not confirming this!), it
is possible that they published it in violation of that rule.

Or that rule may not exists.

Note also "free to use" is not enough, it is also necessary that (for example)
unlimited and unrestricted modification and distribution is also allowed.

> I remember reading it a few months ago that there was no restriction of
> use for GTFS feeds
>
I am pretty sure that it is not true.

>
> , but I couldn't find it right now. I guess I'll need
> to send an email asking for permission to use the data.
>
Good idea, maybe it is published on license allowing
OSM use.
___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit