Re: [Talk-transit] Mapping intercity bus routes
I just realized that for people living in a bigger country there might actually be a difference between those two. There is however no reason they could not be rendered the same (at least initially). On 05/26/2014 05:46 PM, Cartinus wrote: > bus=long_distance (70 uses currently in the database) > bus=interurban (59 uses currently in the database) > > It would be handy to standardize on one of those two. --- m.v.g., Cartinus ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Mapping intercity bus routes
While you could call all intercity buses express buses. Not all express buses are intercity buses. A common scheme around here is for rush hour express lines that stop at all stops in the suburbs/villages, then skip most/all stops in the city proper and end at the central (bus)station. The original Oxomoa scheme already contained a solution to your problem[1]. It simply is not widely used yet. See taginfo[2]: bus=long_distance (70 uses currently in the database) bus=interurban (59 uses currently in the database) It would be handy to standardize on one of those two. [1]<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Oxomoa/%C3%96PNV-Schema#Bus-_und_Oberleitungsbuslinien> [2]<http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/bus#values> On 05/26/2014 05:02 PM, Teemu Ikonen wrote: > Hi, > > Thanks to all for the replies on coach route mapping. > > I don't agree that this is purely a rendering problem. The information > needed to distinguish urban bus transit from long distance coach > services simply does not exist in the database at the moment and there > is no consistent way of tagging routes so that this distinction could > be made. > > Looking at the active public transport proposal again, the network tag > of route=bus/train/subway/tram could be part of a solution, but it > seems that the usage is not really consistent everywhere. For example, > in Helsinki the bus routes have network=Helsinki, subway has > network='Helsingin metro' and so on, even though both can be used > with the same ticket. This could be a local problem though. > > I still think that long distance services which are not part of an > urban transit network should be distinguished somehow, so I like the > idea of using service=express for coaches. This could mostly do what I > was proposing, if it would be widely used and the rendered correctly. > Currently this tag seems to be used only around Oxford and ignored by > tile rendering style sheets. > > The rendering of coach routes should be de-emphasized in high zoom > levels, i.e. they should be overdrawn by local transit bus lines, but > on the other hand they should be also drawn in low zoom levels, like > long distance train routes in Öpnvkarte are. > > Best, > Teemu > > ___ > Talk-transit mailing list > Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit > -- --- m.v.g., Cartinus ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] NEW Proposed Feature
On Friday 28 January 2011 09:05:44 Dominik Mahrer (Teddy) wrote: > It seams to me, this proposal is a sipmlified version of my proposal > with the following key features: > > Used well known tags for stops (also possible with mine). > Stop area left away (also possible with mine). > One relation per direction (identical to mine). > Route master left away (also possible with mine). > > So I do not see a real benefit of this proposal... Most of the opposition against your proposal is probably generated by the presentation. You describe all options in complete detail and then somewere in the paragraph the reader can find whether something is optional or not. (Plus most what is now optional was not optional in your initial proposal.) This makes it difficult to read for people who want to know how to map the simple cases. Compare this to how the Karlsruhe Schema [1] for housenumbers was started. First it describes the basics. Then below that it describes the more complex use cases, which are clearly marked optional. Secondly if you first document and try to agree on the basics, then the discussion is not (normally) disturbed by endless discussions about details in the optional stuff. [1] <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/House_numbers/Karlsruhe_Schema> -- m.v.g., Cartinus ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Public transport proposal
On Friday 14 January 2011 08:43:48 Carsten Schönert wrote: > And, there in OSM history is any "standard"? > I only know well used key/value pair. There is another standard: * People who do get things done. * People who just make noise (whether they are right or wrong) get ignored after a while. -- m.v.g., Cartinus ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] NEW Proposed Feature
On Friday 14 January 2011 12:46:44 ant wrote: > Finally, that sounds much more like positive criticism :) > By the way, thanks Michał, for pointing out details of the routing > techniques that I obviously got wrong. Now let's see how we can tackle > the issues we have. Proposal finished. This has all we need: 1) No complex stuff around stops/platforms 2) No roles in routes -- m.v.g., Cartinus ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Proposed Feature - 2nd RFC - Public Transport
On Friday 14 January 2011 12:42:40 Oleksandr Vlasov wrote: > What's the status of unified_stoparea, btw? It's in RFC stage for almost 2 > years, wikipage not being actively edited for year and a half. If any proposal is dormant for such a long time you have to look at the actual usage. If it is widely used, then it has become a accepted and the wiki simply is "out of date". If it is not widely used then, there is probably something wrong with it. -- m.v.g., Cartinus ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Proposed Feature - 2nd RFC - Public Transport
On Tuesday 11 January 2011 17:01:32 Michał Borsuk wrote: > > This role thing is much more complicated than different relations. > > Does forward mean the direction of the bus line, or that of the way > > element in OSM? *That* is what confuses new users. > > Then all we need is to clear that confusion. Yes, we need to explain it again and again and again and again, because it is too difficult to understand for a significant number of new users. So if we just dump it we can stop explaining. -- m.v.g., Cartinus ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] totally abandoned rails
On Saturday 31 July 2010 20:58:59 Heiko Jacobs wrote: > Heiko Jacobs schrieb: > > ... > > Sometimes the "traces" of a railway are very "virtual": > > ... > > Sometimes no trace exist anymore > > ... > > For this I'm searching a word ... If you don't map it, then you don't need the word -> that is why you don't get much support from other people finding it. On Saturday 31 July 2010 20:58:59 Heiko Jacobs wrote: > Cartinus schrieb: > > You don't have to dig. Medieval maps are certainly out of copyright. > > ... and out of coordinates ... > surveying with suitable precision started long time after medieval ... How are you going to find accurate coordinates for something that is no longer there like your railway? What you described previously were approximations based on other things. How accurate is tracing lakes from landsat images? How accurate is the PGS data most coastlines in OSM are based on? How accurate is a GPS on a wooded mountain trail or in a typical city centre? Look up "map warping" with your favourite search engine to see what people are doing with historical maps and known points. OSM is full of inaccurate data. -- m.v.g., Cartinus ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] totally abandoned rails
On Saturday 31 July 2010 16:18:10 Heiko Jacobs wrote: > > I'm interested in railways too, so I find that interesting. Railways are > > relative sparse, so it won't clutter the map much. > > ... and with the suitable tag it won't clutter the rendered slippy map It's not the rendered maps that become harder to use. It is the working maps in the editors it is about. Try to imagine working with three overlapping street patterns, where part of the streets is the same in two or three time periods. > For such real ancient things: > If they don't dig, they don't have coordinates ;-) You don't have to dig. Medieval maps are certainly out of copyright. You and I are both interested in railroads. If we are "allowed" to map those railroads were no traces are visible anymore, then other people would be "allowed" to map other things that are not there. > So a combination of parts with > disused, abandoned and the new tag will produce the whole network > for later special maps. The question is however: Does the data for those special maps belong in the database with data about how the world looks on the ground right now. As long as the tools can't cope with the time dimension, a lot of people will keep thinking it doesn't. -- m.v.g., Cartinus ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] totally abandoned rails
On Saturday 31 July 2010 14:23:11 Michał Borsuk wrote: > > There is actually a significant number of people that think we should > > _not_ map stuff that is no longer there. > > But IIRC the question was how to map a former railway line that is > older/more damaged than mothballed / overgrown with trees, but not yet > removed. That could be mapped. If there are still traces then it could be mapped. There is a tag for that in use for ages: railway=abandoned Any variations are wrong (just kidding) But from the first post: >So I just searching for a suitable word for tagging traceless dissappeard >railways ... The problem with tagging something like that is: where to stop? I'm interested in railways too, so I find that interesting. Railways are relative sparse, so it won't clutter the map much. Next comes the historic society of "blah city" and they want to map the medieval street pattern. Half a year later they have a project about Roman times and want to map the castellum that once stood where now the city centre is. Or closer in time: How to map it when residential buildings are knocked down to expand the central business district with a bunch of office towers? Current practice is to delete what was there and draw the new stuff in it's place. -- m.v.g., Cartinus ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] totally abandoned rails
On Saturday 31 July 2010 10:06:23 Heiko Jacobs wrote: > It seems, that no one else will comment here? I think you don't get much comment because most mappers are too busy with mapping stuff that is still there. There is actually a significant number of people that think we should _not_ map stuff that is no longer there. At least not until there is a working technical solution to map the time dimension. -- m.v.g., Cartinus ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Issues with evening / sundays routes
I think the first part of your mail (before the opening hours stuff) is going backwards about it. You're proposing to put things that are not completely or not at all right into tags that the tools already recognise, so they will give output that you like. E.g. ref=10/ref=10S when the bus company isn't using the S at all in the real world. In <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Oxomoa/Public_transport_schema#Bus_lines_and_trolley_bus_lines> there are tags like service=night / service=weekend and by_night=only. How about we ask the tool developers to support those? -- m.v.g., Cartinus ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] bus route/relations done right
On Tuesday 17 November 2009 08:35:24 Ed Loach wrote: > I think there have been > discussions on this list about the ways, and one suggestion (IIRC) > was to add each direction of a route that goes back and forth as > separate relations and make a single relation containing both (can't > remember what the names were, but something like line and route). In > this instance every member of the "line" relation would have > forward/backward next to it, and the reverse "line" would have the > same ways with the opposite forward/backward. That would be overly complex. The whole idea behind splitting a route into two routes (one for each direction) is that then you no longer need the forward/backward roles. You'd put a "from" and a "to" tag on the whole relation. -- m.v.g., Cartinus ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Relations for stop areas in NaPTAN
On Monday 28 September 2009 17:13:21 Claudius Henrichs wrote: > Could anyone give a quick comment on what the consensus of the list > member's on using his proposal is? I've been using it extensively and > find it to be well though through I'm still opposed to replacing route with line just for public transport. That part was definitely not well thought out. -- m.v.g., Cartinus ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Railway route relations
On Monday 10 August 2009 09:10:15 Jochen Topf wrote: > The "infrastructure route" is something different from the "moving vehicles > forming a route". They are two different concepts, so they deserve their > own keys. A bicycle route or walking route is more like an "infrastructure > route", there are signs on the way. Its a physically existing thing. The > "moving vehicle route" (which we called a line) is more "ephemeral". To me signs have nothing to do with infrastructure. For me the infrastructure are the roads themselves. So to me a cycleroute is a moving vehicle route. >From this follows that introducing "line" relations is not consistent at all, because then we have a different type of relation for public transport moving vehicle routes and private transport moving vehicle routes. -- m.v.g., Cartinus ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Railway route relations
On Wednesday 05 August 2009 00:37:50 Frankie Roberto wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm still keen to try and nail this public transport service vs > infrastructure issue. > IMHO the solution is simple. Name it after what you are mapping. For vehicles: The route the cyclist follows is route=bicycle. The route bus 5 follows is route=bus. The route tram 13 follows is route=tram. The route the Eurostar follows is route=train. For infrastructure: The "route" of the M1 is route=road The "route" that is made up of the rail tracks of the East Coast Mainline is route=rail. Deprecating route= and replacing it with line= for most things where we currently use route= is a lot of work for no real gain. -- m.v.g., Cartinus ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Multiple tracks
On Friday 26 June 2009 10:27:07 Peter Miller wrote: > However I am participating in this thread because I want to be able to > produce rail maps that use different line styles for single track, > twin track and multi-track routes because single track working is a > real pain for operators and it is important to be able to see where > they are on a map. Typically single track sections will be in one > colour, twin track in another and multi-track in another one. You can actually do that with the tag proposed in the mail that started this thread. You don't need anything more complex. -- m.v.g., Cartinus ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Multiple tracks
On Saturday 20 June 2009 22:20:09 Jochen Topf wrote: > Can you think of any software or at least give an algorithm that would make > use of this tag? When you use a different linestyle for rendering single and double track, then (for the middle zoom levels) you can use the linestyle for double track on any single track that has this extra tag. Aggregation then takes care of itself. -- m.v.g., Cartinus ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Neues ÖPNV-Schema: Metro taggen
You were talking earlier about losing sight of the mapper Doing it as you describe below is a huge duplication of data. This needless typing can be a source of errors too. The proposal in the wiki as it is currently written only requires the "from" and "to" tags on the line variant. To be able to work effectively with JOSM and these kind of relations, you'd probably also want to tag the ref on the line variant, but all the other tags shouldn't be needed if they are the same as those on the line itself. On Thursday 04 June 2009 10:30:58 Sebastian Schwarz wrote: > Hallo Claudius! > > Was mir jetzt bei näherem Hinsehen noch auffiel: > Wenn Du Lust hast, kannst Du ja zusätzlich zu den beiden > Linienrelationen, die Du schon erstellt hast, noch jeweils die > Rückwege (oder Hinwege - wie man's nimmt) als Relationen erstellen, > also quasi die identischen Relationen, nur mit umgekehrten > Mitgliederreihenfolgen und vertauschten Werten für "to" und "from". Im > Anschluss kannst Du dann für die beiden Linien jeweils noch eine > übergeordnete Relation erstellen, die beide Varianten (also Hin- und > Rückweg) als Mitglieder enthält und dieselben Tags aufweist wie ihre > Varianten, allerdings ohne "to" und "from". > > Anschaulicher erklärt (an der Linie M1): > > vorhanden ist eine Relation mit: > by_night = yes > color = #008060 > from = Vanløse > line = subway > operator = Inmetro > ref = M1 > text_color = green > to = Vestamager > > dazukommen soll eine Relation mit: > by_night = yes > color = #008060 > from = Vestamager > line = subway > operator = Inmetro > ref = M1 > text_color = green > to = Vanløse > > und eine übergeordnete Relation, die die beiden obigen als Mitglieder > umfasst, mit: > by_night = yes > color = #008060 > line = subway > operator = Inmetro > ref = M1 > text_color = green > > Gruß -- m.v.g., Cartinus ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] How to represent 6 month long engineering works in OSM?
On Thursday 23 April 2009 15:31:51 Frankie Roberto wrote: > * remove the railway=tram tags so that they disappear from the renderings. > * add a closed=yes tag, which probably wouldn't currently affect renderings > * leave as is. For highways we have highway=construction / construction=* This is mostly used for completely new construction, but in the city where I live another mapper has used this on some long term reconstruction projects too. So the most consistent tagging would IMHO be to use railway=construction / construction=tram This is not currently rendered on the mapnik layer of the main site, but this is rendered dashed with Osmarender. -- m.v.g., Cartinus ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
