Re: [Talk-transit] pay_scale_area
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 02:57:29PM +0100, Dave F. wrote: The pay_scale_area gas just been added around my home town. The boundary, thankfully, doesn't show up, but unfortunately the name label does in Mapnik. Can this be amended to it _doesn't_ display? Thats a long-standing problem with the current Mapnik style sheet. If it doesn't know what it is, it doesn't render the feature but it renders the name. :-( Jochen -- Jochen Topf joc...@remote.org http://www.remote.org/jochen/ +49-721-388298 ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Railway route relations
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 01:31:10AM +0200, Cartinus wrote: 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. Of course its not about the signs themselves, they just help identify the infrastructure. I'll try to explain my point differently: There is infrastructure in the form of roads and paths. Some of them have names or numbers, often overlapping, such as the School Rd or M5 or B 57 or Thames Cylce Path. People (optionally in their vehicles) use this infrastructure to move about. Sometimes they use one part of the infrastructure, sometimes another part. For most journeys they will use several of those named/numbered routes. So I might take my bike out for a spin first along some local roads (Foo Rd, Bar Rd, ...), a larger Road (B 567) and then along smaller roads again which happen to be part of the Baz Cycle Route etc. Public transport lines are different. They are not part of this infrastructure, they us it just like I use this infrastructure when out cycling. But there is a difference to my cycling: They always use the same parts of the infrastructure on each journey. Unlike my way to work (which is the same each day, too), these public transport journeys are important to many people. Thats why we want to put them into OSM. I totally agree that this is only one way of thinking about these difference and as always the world is much more complicated. But I happen to think this to be a very obvious and logical classification. Others might see it differently. Jochen -- Jochen Topf joc...@remote.org http://www.remote.org/jochen/ +49-721-388298 ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Wiki cleanup
On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 12:37:11PM +0100, Peter Miller wrote: We need a decision on the 'Public Transport' vs 'Transit' question. Which term should we use on the wiki because I don't want a muddle. I note that the article on Wikipedia is called 'Public transport', with 'mass transit' and 'public transportation' as alternatives. I propose that we mirror Wikipedia and use the same term. +1 I will therefore move Transit - Public Transport, convert 'category:Transit' to 'category:Public transport', If I don't hear voices against this proposal I will get on with it soon. If we do this then I suggest that we deprecate use of the term 'transit' in general on the wiki. And we'll have to rename this mailing list. :-) Jochen -- Jochen Topf joc...@remote.org http://www.remote.org/jochen/ +49-721-388298 ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Railway route relations
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 04:24:34PM +0100, Frankie Roberto wrote: On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.comwrote: I think the problem is that we are using the term Route for at least two different things. The more I think about it, the more I think this needs resolving (and well documenting)! The first question is what does route=railway denote, the infrastructure or the service pattern? This has been solved in Sebastians proposal: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Oxomoa/Public_transport_schema#Differentiation_between_railway_lines_and_railway_routes Jochen -- Jochen Topf joc...@remote.org http://www.remote.org/jochen/ +49-721-388298 ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Multiple tracks
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 07:24:37AM +0200, Cartinus wrote: 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. So, do I understand this correctly: On small zoom levels you want to render all tracks with track=1ofX and all with track=YofX with Y!=1 don't get rendered. It is the responsibility of the mapper to decide which of several tracks gets to be number one, because this is the only one rendered (presumably a middle one, if available). Of course you still have to render all tracks without this tag, because you don't know how they hang together. I guess this could work for rendering. There'll probably be some oddities where different railways join, but for small enough zoom levels one can't see that. Mappers would need some guidance on how to tag railway yards, larger stations etc. so that it comes out right. Jochen -- Jochen Topf joc...@remote.org http://www.remote.org/jochen/ +49-721-388298 ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Public transport workshop in Germany
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 08:54:48AM +0100, Roger Slevin wrote: What has not been mentioned specifically in this thread (although I know Peter is very much aware of it) is that there is an approved European Technical Specification (Identification of Fixed Objects in Public Transport - IFOPT) that has built on the experience of NaPTAN and other related work to date, and covers the same ground. A colleague is putting together some comments on how the German work relates to IFOPT. Early indications are that the matching of fundamentals is good (as might be expected - given that NaPTAN was a key input to IFOPT) ... but I hope something on this will be posted here in the next few days. Lets not forget that this is OSM. We do things step by step here with lots of experimentation. Its more about evolving to a good model than creating some complex top-down design. The scheme under discussion is one such step. Its not as complex as IFOPT and probably can't do all that IFOPT can do, but it is reasonably similar to the current OSM model yet more clear and powerful while still beeing understandable. A complex model created by professionals for professionals is sure to fail in OSM. In the long run we can work more and more towards this complex model when the software supporthas improved and we understand better what we want and what we need. But for now we should try to cram everything in. IFOPT seems for instance to allow full recursion on many of its objects which is really hard to handle properly and has, in my opinion, currently no place in OSM. Of course where there are good ideas we should incorporate them. Especially when naming things it makes sense to follow established practices here. Jochen -- Jochen Topf joc...@remote.org http://www.remote.org/jochen/ +49-721-388298 ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
