Re: [talk-au] Changing building levels elevator to description elevator shell

[Sigurjón Gísli Rúnarsson]

Thank you guys for the feedback.

Based on the discussion we have revised how we will map the elevator ways.

Inside:
building:part=elevator
building:levels=[number]
wheelchair=yes
level=0;1

Outside:
building=yes
description=elevator shell
building:levels=[number]
wheelchair=yes
level=0;1

We will revisit all our elevator ways in the coming days and weeks and
adjust accordingly.

>From our point of view we mainly use the elevator nodes for routing and the
ways are more for visual representation.  Going forward we will try to
match the tagging for both the ways and the nodes, if applicable.



Regards,
Sigurjon
TfNSW


On Tue, 25 Oct 2022 at 02:54, Ben Ritter  wrote:

> building:levels=2
>>
>> That would mean it only is on building level 2.. and it would not go from
>> another building level.
>>
>
> That's not right, `building:levels` does describes the number of levels
> that a building has:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:building:levels
> You're thinking of `level`, as in `highway=elevator`, `level=0;1`. 42% of
> `highway=elevator`s also have `level=*`:
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/highway=elevator#combinations
>
>> indoor=room
>>
>> That would mean it is within a larger building...
>>
>
> A room is a room whether it is attached to other rooms or not...
> `indoor=room` seems completely reasonable to me.
>
> `room=elevator` (1000 total
> ) and
> `building:part=elevator` (2500 total
> ) are both
> pretty rare tags, but they are both clear and fit in with their
> respective schemes, so either is a welcome contribution.
>
> Cheers,
> Ben
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Changing building levels elevator to description elevator shell

[Sigurjón Gísli Rúnarsson]

Hi Warin,



Apologies for not getting back to you and acting on this.

We will revisit all these locations and update in the coming days.





Below is how we plan to tag the two typical scenarios:



*inside a building *

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/993829900



highway=elevator

building:levels=2

indoor=room

room=elevator



*outside building (stand alone) *

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/993533793



highway=elevator

building:levels=3

building:yes

description=elevator shell





Please let me know if you are not happy with this approach.





Regards,

Sigurjon

TfNSW

On Sun, 23 Oct 2022 at 22:27, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On 23/10/22 21:46, Phil Wyatt wrote:
> > Hi Warin,
> >
> > Both of those examples were previously build:part=elevator. Its probably
> > worth asking why they changed them to building:levels=elevator. That
> seems
> > to be a more appropriate tagging.
>
>
> building:part should be a 'part' of a building .. not the entire
> building .. they are both tagged with building=yes.
>
> One example
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/996164524/history
>
> has no past history .. so no previous key of building:part.
>
>
> I'd have no problem with building=elevator_shell, but they are
> building=yes. I am happy to change that too, if acceptable?
>
> I have been using building=silo with man_made=silo (key building for
> rendering the area .. man_made just does a symbol).
>
>
> >
> > Cheers - Phil
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>
> > Sent: Sunday, 23 October 2022 8:41 PM
> > To: OSM Australian Talk List 
> > Subject: [talk-au] Changing building levels elevator to description
> elevator
> > shell
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > There are ~260 of closed ways with the tag 'building:levels=elevator'.
> >
> > This tag should have numbers as the value not text, the number being the
> > number of levels.
> >
> > See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:building:levels.
> >
> >
> > These object all are associated with railway stations around Sydney and
> > appear to have been added by members of TfNSW team. I have left a
> message on
> > one of their members changeset but have had no reply.
> >
> > There are no other uses of this tag elsewhere in the world.
> >
> >
> > My thoughts are to change the tag to 'description=elevator shell' as
> these
> > look to be the walls around the outside of the moving elevator that is
> > presently mapped as a node in these cases.
> >
> >
> > Examples
> >
> > Way 993829900 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/993829900
> >
> > Way 996164524 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/996164524
> >
> >
> > Any thoughts?
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Talk-au mailing list
> > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
> >
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] Ferry Routes mapping in NSW

[Sigurjón Gísli Rúnarsson]

Hi,


I would like to amend the Ferry routes in NSW, particularly in and around
Sydney using a different approach.



At the moment the Ferry routes are mapped with a *single way
approach,* by tagging
a single way drawn along the whole route (i.e. Circular Quay to Manly).
The only benefit for the single line approach, that I can see, is that it
is simple and represents well on the map tiles.  The problem with this
approach is that it does not allow ways to share different routes and or
variants.



That’s where my particular problem lies.  When I try to generate route
paths from GTFS Sydney Ferries and private ferries (TfNSW) using the OSM
Ferry route paths as the routing network, a lot of errors occur.  Many
variants/trips in the GTFS dataset, which are based on recent timetable
information from Sydney Ferries and other private operators, have no
routing options.  This is because of the single way approach between
wharves.



For example, F4 Watsons Bay – Pyrmont via Rose Bay and Circular Quay: To go
from Rose Bay to Circular Quay the routing takes you around the harbour
(Taronga Zoo, Milsons Point, Balmain and Darling H) before getting to CQ
Wharf 5.  Instead, there should be a direct route displayed between Rose
Bay and Circular Quay



Another example is that one ferry service might use wharf 5 at Circular
Quay, but 20% of the trips/variants might use wharf 4. Those 20% of
trips/variants will not route to and from the correct wharf using the
single way approach.



To be able to use the OSM Ferry route network for routing using GTFS files
from TfNSW, I want to map based on the *relation approach*.  Just like
other transport modes are being mapped in OSM (i.e. bus routes).



This would mean that more than one ferry route could share some ways,
enabling users to extract OSM ferry routes to use for routing.



I would like to get thoughts from OSM users on this approach before I start
mapping in such way.


Regards,

Maradona11
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au