Re: [Talk-transit] Railway route relations
On 11 Aug 2009, at 09:23, Frankie Roberto wrote: On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 8:21 AM, Jochen Topf wrote: 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. snip I have to say, my interpretation was the same as Cartinus's - ie that railway services (eg London-Paris) and bus routes fall into the same category as cycle routes and walking routes. Take cycle routes, for instance. In the UK at least, well-known cycle routes (such as the national or regional ones) often don't use much in the way of dedicated infrastructure - instead, they are simply a publicised path along existing roadways, paths, and so on. They may not even be signposted at all - they may simply be published in a guidebook (eg I'm not sure whether the "Sea to Sea" route is signposted as such at all - http://www.c2c-guide.co.uk/). So these to me seem the same as train service routes, which use infrastructure (railway tracks) in the same way the bicycles do. There does seem to a continuum from a cycle route that has physical signs all along its route and some of the route was built for the route through to a route that is recommended in the guidebook for which there is no physical presence. I think we can agree, though, that these distinctions are subtle and subject to interpretation. The Routes page also includes route=road for long distance road routes, which are clearly a bit more infrastructure-like, but also fairly conceptual (as they're not always one long physical road, but rather a collection of roads grouped together and given a name or reference). This ambiguity, I think, makes using one key (route=) for both railway tracks (route=railway) and railway services (route=train) the simplest and most understandable solution. If there isn't yet a consensus on this, however, I think we should continue to document and describe the various different proposals (making an effort to make them as easy to read and understand as possible), and then invite a wider debate - or simply see which tagging scheme seems to end up being used the most by mappers... I do agree that it might be useful to try using the term Route to describe all these forms (both infrastructure and operational) and see if it makes sense when presented that way - I have found in the past that it is often a good test to try to document a design before building it - if you can document it clearly and concisely then it is probably a good design, if the documentation becomes full of sub- clauses and explanations to try to make it accurate then the design is probably a bad one. Regards, Peter Frankie -- Frankie Roberto Experience Designer, Rattle 0114 2706977 http://www.rattlecentral.com ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit ___ 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 8:21 AM, Jochen Topf wrote: > 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. This is very interesting - there are clearly two very different interpretations as to what "infrastructure" means. I have to say, my interpretation was the same as Cartinus's - ie that railway services (eg London-Paris) and bus routes fall into the same category as cycle routes and walking routes. Take cycle routes, for instance. In the UK at least, well-known cycle routes (such as the national or regional ones) often don't use much in the way of dedicated infrastructure - instead, they are simply a publicised path along existing roadways, paths, and so on. They may not even be signposted at all - they may simply be published in a guidebook (eg I'm not sure whether the "Sea to Sea" route is signposted as such at all - http://www.c2c-guide.co.uk/). So these to me seem the same as train service routes, which use infrastructure (railway tracks) in the same way the bicycles do. To take another perspective, your "way to work" may not be of enough relevance to map in OSM, but popular, non-official walking or cycling paths may be. Indeed the Routes page (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Routes) seems to suggest that pilgrimage routes and protest marches can also be mapped. I think we can agree, though, that these distinctions are subtle and subject to interpretation. The Routes page also includes route=road for long distance road routes, which are clearly a bit more infrastructure-like, but also fairly conceptual (as they're not always one long physical road, but rather a collection of roads grouped together and given a name or reference). This ambiguity, I think, makes using one key (route=) for both railway tracks (route=railway) and railway services (route=train) the simplest and most understandable solution. If there isn't yet a consensus on this, however, I think we should continue to document and describe the various different proposals (making an effort to make them as easy to read and understand as possible), and then invite a wider debate - or simply see which tagging scheme seems to end up being used the most by mappers... Frankie -- Frankie Roberto Experience Designer, Rattle 0114 2706977 http://www.rattlecentral.com ___ 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] 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 10 Aug 2009, at 08:10, Jochen Topf wrote: > On Sun, Aug 09, 2009 at 09:30:34PM +0100, Frankie Roberto wrote: >> On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 5:08 PM, Jochen Topf >> wrote: >> >> 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. >>> >>> Oxomoas proposal makes things more consistent: >>> >>> You have >>> railway=rail >>> railway=light_rail >>> etc. >>> >>> and the corresponding relations are: >>> line=rail >>> line=light_rail >>> >>> It seems rather confusing to me to have: >>> route=train corresponding to railway=rail >>> and >>> route=light_rail corresponding to railway=light_rail >> >> >> For me, light_rail describes only the infrastructure, so I'd tag >> the ways >> with railway=light_rail, would add an infrastructure relation (if >> necessary) >> tagged with route=railway, and add a service(s) relation tagged with >> route=train. >> >> In short, I don't think we need different tags to distinguish >> between rail >> and light rail train services, as both use "trains" as the >> vehicles, and the >> type of railway can be determined by the infrastructure tags. > > Well, for one its inconsistent which makes it hard to tag. And its > harder to > use. If you want different rendering based on rail type, you'll have > to > consult a whole different set of tags. > >>> Thats why we decided to do it this way at the workshop in >>> Karlsruhe. The >>> way we introduced line=* was to make this consistent and at the >>> same time >>> mostly backwards compatible to current use. >>> >> >> It seems odd to me to introduce a whole new key (line=*) when we >> already >> have a well established route=* key used across other forms of >> transport >> (bicycle routes, walking routes, etc). Perhaps I'm missing >> something - could >> you explain the thought process behind it? > > 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". > >> I also find the use of "line", in English at least, to be >> problematic for >> describing train services, as it seems to be more often used to >> describe the >> infrastructure (eg West Coast Main Line). > > Not beeing native English speakers we felt that the choice was > arbitrary, > both words can be used for both meanings. So we chose the one that > best fit > with the established meaning of cycle or hiking routes. (Although it > clashes > with route=ferry.) In the end the terminology will be pretty arbitrary because we are talking about a concept that not many people need to be very precise about in their daily lives, however we need to be internally consistent. Fyi, here is a copy of a comment I put on the wiki yesterday: "Lines,Routes and Services - which term to use? "Should we call a bus service offered to the public a 'Bus Route', a 'Bus Line' or a 'Bus Service? Currently we are using all terms interchagably. For example these is a section called 'Bus Services' which then says that they should be defined using as a 'Route' relation. Some people use the 'Line' relation for this purpose (as proposed by Oxomoa). This Buses:talk page also uses the term Line in the section 'Classifying Bus Routes' for the same term. And ... on the Public transport page we talk about 'Service Routes'. This can all be confusing and I suggest we try to use one term throughout. "Transmodel (and therefore the EU professional community) have settled on Line; Route being used to describe the physical path taken by a vehicle through the infrastructure. I don't mind what we use, but we should be consistent. Personally sticking to Route seems to make sense to me, Line comes second and Service as my least favourite (because it can mean so many think); the 'Saturday service' (runs of Saturday), the bus is 'in service' today (it is being used operationally at the moment) and... the bus is 'being serviced' today (ie it is being repaired and is not available). Any comments? PeterIto 17:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Buses If we take the view (as suggested by Jochen) that Route should be used for something that related to physical infrastructure (such as a cycle route with physical signs at j
Re: [Talk-transit] Railway route relations
On Sun, Aug 09, 2009 at 09:30:34PM +0100, Frankie Roberto wrote: > On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 5:08 PM, Jochen Topf wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > Oxomoas proposal makes things more consistent: > > > > You have > > railway=rail > > railway=light_rail > > etc. > > > > and the corresponding relations are: > > line=rail > > line=light_rail > > > > It seems rather confusing to me to have: > > route=train corresponding to railway=rail > > and > > route=light_rail corresponding to railway=light_rail > > > For me, light_rail describes only the infrastructure, so I'd tag the ways > with railway=light_rail, would add an infrastructure relation (if necessary) > tagged with route=railway, and add a service(s) relation tagged with > route=train. > > In short, I don't think we need different tags to distinguish between rail > and light rail train services, as both use "trains" as the vehicles, and the > type of railway can be determined by the infrastructure tags. Well, for one its inconsistent which makes it hard to tag. And its harder to use. If you want different rendering based on rail type, you'll have to consult a whole different set of tags. > > Thats why we decided to do it this way at the workshop in Karlsruhe. The > > way we introduced line=* was to make this consistent and at the same time > > mostly backwards compatible to current use. > > > > It seems odd to me to introduce a whole new key (line=*) when we already > have a well established route=* key used across other forms of transport > (bicycle routes, walking routes, etc). Perhaps I'm missing something - could > you explain the thought process behind it? 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". > I also find the use of "line", in English at least, to be problematic for > describing train services, as it seems to be more often used to describe the > infrastructure (eg West Coast Main Line). Not beeing native English speakers we felt that the choice was arbitrary, both words can be used for both meanings. So we chose the one that best fit with the established meaning of cycle or hiking routes. (Although it clashes with route=ferry.) 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 Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 5:08 PM, Jochen Topf wrote: > > 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. > > Oxomoas proposal makes things more consistent: > > You have > railway=rail > railway=light_rail > etc. > > and the corresponding relations are: > line=rail > line=light_rail > > It seems rather confusing to me to have: > route=train corresponding to railway=rail > and > route=light_rail corresponding to railway=light_rail For me, light_rail describes only the infrastructure, so I'd tag the ways with railway=light_rail, would add an infrastructure relation (if necessary) tagged with route=railway, and add a service(s) relation tagged with route=train. In short, I don't think we need different tags to distinguish between rail and light rail train services, as both use "trains" as the vehicles, and the type of railway can be determined by the infrastructure tags. > Thats why we decided to do it this way at the workshop in Karlsruhe. The > way we introduced line=* was to make this consistent and at the same time > mostly backwards compatible to current use. > It seems odd to me to introduce a whole new key (line=*) when we already have a well established route=* key used across other forms of transport (bicycle routes, walking routes, etc). Perhaps I'm missing something - could you explain the thought process behind it? I also find the use of "line", in English at least, to be problematic for describing train services, as it seems to be more often used to describe the infrastructure (eg West Coast Main Line). Cartinus's suggestion of "name [the route] after what you are mapping" feels like the simplest and most workable solution to me - though it doesn't matter too much what we do so long as we can reach a consensus and document it clearly. Frankie ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Railway route relations
On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 02:12:35AM +0200, Cartinus wrote: > 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. Oxomoas proposal makes things more consistent: You have railway=rail railway=light_rail etc. and the corresponding relations are: line=rail line=light_rail It seems rather confusing to me to have: route=train corresponding to railway=rail and route=light_rail corresponding to railway=light_rail Thats why we decided to do it this way at the workshop in Karlsruhe. The way we introduced line=* was to make this consistent and at the same time mostly backwards compatible to current use. 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, Aug 5, 2009 at 1:12 AM, Cartinus wrote: > 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. I think this is probably the smartest, and yet most obvious idea suggested in this thread. I've started to document this on the wiki. Vehicles: route=train http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dtrain route=bus http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dbus route=tram http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dtram Infrastructure: route=railway http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Drailway (I'm not too fussed whether we use route=rail or route=railway, however it's been suggested that route=rail has been used already where route=train would be better) -- Frankie Roberto Experience Designer, Rattle 0114 2706977 http://www.rattlecentral.com ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Railway route relations
On 6 Aug 2009, at 13:52, Hillsman, Edward wrote: Can anyone find the post for the French guy who talked about OpenTimetableService or OpenStreetTimetable, something like that? It was about 6 months ago I think. Maybe it is the OpenTransport project http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-fr/2009-July/011109.html http://3liz.fr/public/osmtransport/ I have relayed the Edward Hillsman,'s information on the French list. Vincent ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Railway route relations
On 5 Aug 2009, at 14:41, Richard Mann wrote: > Yes Frederik could tidy things up, but it's best not to change > things arbitrarily (ie substituting line for route), because it just > makes it harder to remember what is correct. The lack of presets for > relations in Potlatch makes it doubly useful to minimise the > complexity. I totally agree, however we are just setting out on a long journey to capture all the transit data for the world, so lets get the modelling clear now and not be held back by some tag-updating! As we are aware the various transit strands and proposals were initially created bottom-up in a rather random way (which is the nature of these projects). Oxomoa then did a good review of the tagging and identified a number of gaps and inconsistencies with the German community which started to bring it all together. We have also had some useful input from the professional transit community. I suggest that we put significant effort into the wiki and modelling at this point to get all the transit related pages to fit together in a consistent way to our liking and that this will pay big dividends in the future. Regards, Peter > > Richard > ___ > Talk-transit mailing list > Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Railway route relations
Yes Frederik could tidy things up, but it's best not to change things arbitrarily (ie substituting line for route), because it just makes it harder to remember what is correct. The lack of presets for relations in Potlatch makes it doubly useful to minimise the complexity. Richard ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Railway route relations
On 5 Aug 2009, at 13:13, Richard Mann wrote: On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 1:12 AM, Cartinus wrote: 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 +1 Though I'd go for route=railway for infrastructure, since route=rail is currently being used by a lot of relations for which route=train would be better. Do check out this new wiki page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Public_transport_schema_2 I have done some work on the top level modelling for transit information based on Oxoma's work. I am proposing that we use Lines, Line Variants and Routes for the actual services in a similar way to the original proposal. Lines are pretty much unchanged. Line Variants used to hold a stop list and also the route through the infrastructure. I have split this into Line Variants for the list of stops, and Routes for the path through the network (this approach saves work as it allows Routes to be reused on more than one Line Variant). It is also the modelling used by Transmodel which will be helpful when we start getting more EU schedule data. Routes are pretty much the same as cycle routes, ie a single path through the transport network. I have added a basic infrastructure route proposal, but have no strong feelings about what tags we use. With regard to updating what is already in OSM then I suggest we use write some tools to do the job. Frederik has already offered to some support for this (and he recently did some automatic cleanup on tiger data in the USA) using a similar rule-bases approach. Regards, Peter Richard ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Railway route relations
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 1:13 PM, Richard Mann < richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Deprecating route= and replacing it with line= for most things where we >> currently use route= is a lot of work for no real gain. > > > Though I'd go for route=railway for infrastructure, since route=rail is > currently being used by a lot of relations for which route=train would be > better. > +1 route=railway and route=train works for me. For trams, would this be route=tramway and route=tram? Frankie -- Frankie Roberto Experience Designer, Rattle 0114 2706977 http://www.rattlecentral.com ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Railway route relations
Some information lies better on the infrastructure, so for some purposes you want both. I've concluded that infrastructure relations are probably the best way to mark whether route sections are predominantly 1-track, 2-track, 4-track etc. I don't think we've identified much of a need for infrastructure relations on self-contained railways, though I don't think they hurt. Richard On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 8:05 AM, Shaun McDonald wrote: > Couldn't you just use the network tag on the 3 tram route relations and > merge the results to get this relations? It requires a bit more > preprocessing to get the information that you are looking for, whilst making > it easier for mappers and reducing the data size. > Shaun > ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Railway route relations
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 1:12 AM, Cartinus wrote: > 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 > +1 Though I'd go for route=railway for infrastructure, since route=rail is currently being used by a lot of relations for which route=train would be better. Richard ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Railway route relations
Couldn't you just use the network tag on the 3 tram route relations and merge the results to get this relations? It requires a bit more preprocessing to get the information that you are looking for, whilst making it easier for mappers and reducing the data size. Shaun On 4 Aug 2009, at 23:37, Frankie Roberto wrote: Hi all, I'm still keen to try and nail this public transport service vs infrastructure issue. I think this mainly applies to railways, however, as I've mentioned before, I'm trying out a few of the ideas on the UK's much smaller list of tram networks. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Trams details where I've got to so far. The Tramlink in Croydon (London) is a good example of where the the infrastructure (the track network) is clearly different from the tram service patterns (routes 1 to 3). The routes are currently mapped with a relation tagged as type=route, route=tram. I've just created a relation for the network as a whole (see http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/189917) . For the type being, it's tagged as type=network, network=tram as well as public_transport=network from Sebastians proposal. Are there any other views on how this should be tagged? Perhaps the network shouldn't be tagged at all, under the "relations aren't for categories" principle? I'm also of the opinion that we should stick to using type=route, route=tram/railway for the train/tram service patterns, rather than the infrastructure. However, this appears to be the opposite of what's written in http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Oxomoa/Public_transport_schema Thoughts? Frankie On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 10:25 PM, Frankie Roberto > wrote: On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 8:27 PM, Jochen Topf wrote: > 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 Thanks for the link, I hadn't seen this. I agree with Peter that we need to bring these various proposals together, form some kind of consensus, and document it fully on the main wiki pages (eg http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Routes) Interestingly, if I understand it correctly, the division between "route" and "line" in Sebastian's proposal is exactly opposite to what I'd intuitively have guessed at from the words. eg, we have the "West Coast Main Line" (the infrastructure or rail corridor) and "the route of the Flying Scotsman" (the schedule service route). So if it was me, I think I'd name them the opposite way round. However, so long as we document them clearly (with examples), I guess it doesn't matter too much which words we use. As a first step, I think it'd be useful to look at some concrete examples, see how they're currently tagged in OSM, and suggest ways in which the various schemes would be applied. I've started doing this a bit with the UK's tram networks (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Trams ), which so far use route=tram to tag the service patterns of the trams (which seem to sometimes be called lines, and sometimes routes). -- Frankie Roberto Experience Designer, Rattle 0114 2706977 http://www.rattlecentral.com ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Railway route relations
On 4 Aug 2009, at 23:37, Frankie Roberto wrote: Hi all, I'm still keen to try and nail this public transport service vs infrastructure issue. I have create a new wiki-page 'Public transport schema 2' based on Oxomoa's proposal on the main wiki based on the last edit made before the big revert. I have added a bit of information about the relation you refer to in the 'infrastructure' section , but more is needed:- http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Public_transport_schema_2 This is very much a proposal to discuss and develop which I see it as being the top-level transit description which links out to more detailed articles (some of which already exist) to create a coherent whole. Regards, Peter I think this mainly applies to railways, however, as I've mentioned before, I'm trying out a few of the ideas on the UK's much smaller list of tram networks. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Trams details where I've got to so far. The Tramlink in Croydon (London) is a good example of where the the infrastructure (the track network) is clearly different from the tram service patterns (routes 1 to 3). The routes are currently mapped with a relation tagged as type=route, route=tram. I've just created a relation for the network as a whole (see http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/189917) . For the type being, it's tagged as type=network, network=tram as well as public_transport=network from Sebastians proposal. Are there any other views on how this should be tagged? Perhaps the network shouldn't be tagged at all, under the "relations aren't for categories" principle? I'm also of the opinion that we should stick to using type=route, route=tram/railway for the train/tram service patterns, rather than the infrastructure. However, this appears to be the opposite of what's written in http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Oxomoa/Public_transport_schema Thoughts? Frankie On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 10:25 PM, Frankie Roberto > wrote: On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 8:27 PM, Jochen Topf wrote: > 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 Thanks for the link, I hadn't seen this. I agree with Peter that we need to bring these various proposals together, form some kind of consensus, and document it fully on the main wiki pages (eg http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Routes) Interestingly, if I understand it correctly, the division between "route" and "line" in Sebastian's proposal is exactly opposite to what I'd intuitively have guessed at from the words. eg, we have the "West Coast Main Line" (the infrastructure or rail corridor) and "the route of the Flying Scotsman" (the schedule service route). So if it was me, I think I'd name them the opposite way round. However, so long as we document them clearly (with examples), I guess it doesn't matter too much which words we use. As a first step, I think it'd be useful to look at some concrete examples, see how they're currently tagged in OSM, and suggest ways in which the various schemes would be applied. I've started doing this a bit with the UK's tram networks (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Trams ), which so far use route=tram to tag the service patterns of the trams (which seem to sometimes be called lines, and sometimes routes). -- Frankie Roberto Experience Designer, Rattle 0114 2706977 http://www.rattlecentral.com ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit ___ 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] Railway route relations
Hi all, I'm still keen to try and nail this public transport service vs infrastructure issue. I think this mainly applies to railways, however, as I've mentioned before, I'm trying out a few of the ideas on the UK's much smaller list of tram networks. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Trams details where I've got to so far. The Tramlink in Croydon (London) is a good example of where the the infrastructure (the track network) is clearly different from the tram service patterns (routes 1 to 3). The routes are currently mapped with a relation tagged as type=route, route=tram. I've just created a relation for the network as a whole (see http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/189917). For the type being, it's tagged as type=network, network=tram as well as public_transport=network from Sebastians proposal. Are there any other views on how this should be tagged? Perhaps the network shouldn't be tagged at all, under the "relations aren't for categories" principle? I'm also of the opinion that we should stick to using type=route, route=tram/railway for the train/tram service patterns, rather than the infrastructure. However, this appears to be the opposite of what's written in http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Oxomoa/Public_transport_schema Thoughts? Frankie On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 10:25 PM, Frankie Roberto < fran...@frankieroberto.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 8:27 PM, Jochen Topf wrote: > > > 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 > > > Thanks for the link, I hadn't seen this. I agree with Peter that we need to > bring these various proposals together, form some kind of consensus, and > document it fully on the main wiki pages (eg > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Routes) > > Interestingly, if I understand it correctly, the division between "route" > and "line" in Sebastian's proposal is exactly opposite to what I'd > intuitively have guessed at from the words. eg, we have the "West Coast > Main Line" (the infrastructure or rail corridor) and "the route of the > Flying Scotsman" (the schedule service route). > > So if it was me, I think I'd name them the opposite way round. However, so > long as we document them clearly (with examples), I guess it doesn't matter > too much which words we use. > > As a first step, I think it'd be useful to look at some concrete examples, > see how they're currently tagged in OSM, and suggest ways in which the > various schemes would be applied. > > I've started doing this a bit with the UK's tram networks ( > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Trams), which so far use > route=tram to tag the service patterns of the trams (which seem to sometimes > be called lines, and sometimes routes). > -- Frankie Roberto Experience Designer, Rattle 0114 2706977 http://www.rattlecentral.com ___ 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 8:27 PM, Jochen Topf wrote: > 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 Thanks for the link, I hadn't seen this. I agree with Peter that we need to bring these various proposals together, form some kind of consensus, and document it fully on the main wiki pages (eg http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Routes) Interestingly, if I understand it correctly, the division between "route" and "line" in Sebastian's proposal is exactly opposite to what I'd intuitively have guessed at from the words. eg, we have the "West Coast Main Line" (the infrastructure or rail corridor) and "the route of the Flying Scotsman" (the schedule service route). So if it was me, I think I'd name them the opposite way round. However, so long as we document them clearly (with examples), I guess it doesn't matter too much which words we use. As a first step, I think it'd be useful to look at some concrete examples, see how they're currently tagged in OSM, and suggest ways in which the various schemes would be applied. I've started doing this a bit with the UK's tram networks ( http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Trams), which so far use route=tram to tag the service patterns of the trams (which seem to sometimes be called lines, and sometimes routes). Frankie -- Frankie Roberto Experience Designer, Rattle 0114 2706977 http://www.rattlecentral.com -- Frankie Roberto Experience Designer, Rattle 0114 2706977 http://www.rattlecentral.com ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Railway route relations
On 29 Jul 2009, at 20:27, Jochen Topf wrote: > On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 04:24:34PM +0100, Frankie Roberto wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Peter Miller > >wrote: >> >>> 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 I agree that the issues was addressed by Sebastian's proposal, however I think 'solved' is stretching it a little. There are a number of different proposals in play at present and we urgently need to bring then together into an agreed recommendation. For the record, there were various discussions on talk-transit during late May and early June in relation to Sebastian's proposal with input from many parties including the various OSM mappers but also from the UK Department for Transport, Traveline and CEN. This conversation resulted in changes to the wiki page but was basically aborted when it became clear that this discussion was not compatible with the deadline for Sebastian's thesis on which his input to the project was based. The article was reverted to the page prior to that input and the discussion stopped. I respect his right to control the content of a page in his personal wiki-area, but it should not be referenced by the wider community as the agreed position of the community. For the record, this was the article prior to the reversion: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php?title=User:Oxomoa/Public_transport_schema&oldid=278935 Can I propose that we move this 'pre-reversion' version to the main wiki space and continue to work on the many issues raised by the proposal on this list? We will then have some robust and versatile tagging standards for transit data that will work for the longer term. Regards, Peter > > 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 ___ 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 > wrote: > > > 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] Railway route relations
Hi all, On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Peter Miller wrote: > 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? To put it in concrete terms, there are two regular Eurostar services, London-Paris and London-Brussels. Should there be a railway=route relation for each of these services? What about the ocassional Disneyland and "snow train" services to the Alps? These services also travel along the lines known as "High Speed 1" (from Folkestone to London) and "the Channel Tunnel" - should these also be tagged as separate relations? Frankie -- Frankie Roberto Experience Designer, Rattle 0114 2706977 http://www.rattlecentral.com ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Railway route relations
On 9 Jul 2009, at 10:54, Frankie Roberto wrote: On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Peter Miller > wrote: I am happy to change the settings for this list, but then it will be different from most other lists. Lets have a poll and follow the majority. I will stay neutral! For some reason I had it in my head that the main osm-talk list had replies set to go to the group. Anyway, I think it can be useful to have that as the default (especially for small lists). It depends what you're used to though! Btw, could a couple of people also offer to be admins for the list and get to see all the exciting spam offers (of the normal limited variety!) and ban the posters of these messages, oh, and also very occasionally spot a genuine post. To give you an idea of the size of the problem we get about 1 spam message a day. I'd be happy to help out. How does managing the spam work with Gmail (which tends to filter out spam anyway)? Do you have to turn spam filtering off for e-mails sent to the group (in order to be able to spot and ban people)? Thanks. You don't get the spam, you just get a summary email that looks a bit like this (from which I have replaced the real email addresses with xxx). My email comes through Gmail too:- Pending posts: From: xxx on Sat Jun 27 13:07:38 2009 Subject: Guys Give Her the Orgasms She Deserves With Foreplay - rGeat Foreeplay Tips Cause: Post by non-member to a members-only list From: xxx on Tue Jun 30 04:10:04 2009 Subject: How to Make Women eBg to Get Into Bed With You - Bee an Absolute Stunner Cause: Post by non-member to a members-only list From: xxx on Tue Jun 30 17:42:31 2009 Subject: Tell a Friend About Good News Garage Cause: Post by non-member to a members-only list Frankie P.S How many people here are going to SOTM? Maybe we could have a mini transit meetup? Sounds great. I am heading there today. Regards, Peter -- Frankie Roberto Experience Designer, Rattle 0114 2706977 http://www.rattlecentral.com ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Railway route relations
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Peter Miller wrote: > I am happy to change the settings for this list, but then it will be > different from most other lists. Lets have a poll and follow the majority. I > will stay neutral! > For some reason I had it in my head that the main osm-talk list had replies set to go to the group. Anyway, I think it can be useful to have that as the default (especially for small lists). It depends what you're used to though! > Btw, could a couple of people also offer to be admins for the list and get > to see all the exciting spam offers (of the normal limited variety!) and ban > the posters of these messages, oh, and also very occasionally spot a genuine > post. To give you an idea of the size of the problem we get about 1 spam > message a day. > I'd be happy to help out. How does managing the spam work with Gmail (which tends to filter out spam anyway)? Do you have to turn spam filtering off for e-mails sent to the group (in order to be able to spot and ban people)? Frankie P.S How many people here are going to SOTM? Maybe we could have a mini transit meetup? -- Frankie Roberto Experience Designer, Rattle 0114 2706977 http://www.rattlecentral.com ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Railway route relations
On 9 Jul 2009, at 10:39, Frankie Roberto wrote: On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Richard Mann > wrote: You went off-liste Dammit. Can we change the reply-to settings? (or has that debate been done to death already?) I am happy to change the settings for this list, but then it will be different from most other lists. Lets have a poll and follow the majority. I will stay neutral! Btw, could a couple of people also offer to be admins for the list and get to see all the exciting spam offers (of the normal limited variety!) and ban the posters of these messages, oh, and also very occasionally spot a genuine post. To give you an idea of the size of the problem we get about 1 spam message a day. Regards, Peter I'd think I'd propose an alternative service such as service=heritage (or stick with service=regional): type=line line=rail service=heritage ref=abbreviated name of railway (it's not like there's going to be more than one service on the line) Hmm, looks like I have some re-tagging to do then (after having nearly completed the list at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_United_Kingdom_Independent_and_minor_railways) . Is there any sense to having a route relation AND a line relation on these types of railways? Frankie Richard On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 3:54 PM, Frankie Roberto > wrote: Richard Mann wrote: The public transport schema says we should be tagging rail service relations as: No route tag line=rail service = high_speed / long_distance / regional / commuter ref = service reference nat_ref = national timetable reference Could anyone offer guidance on how this applies to 'heritage' railways? eg http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/162879 and those listed on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_United_Kingdom_Independent_and_minor_railways Some of the things I've noted: * The "routes" (in terms of the the route of the actual trains) usually match 1 to 1 with the physical "line", except: * Sometimes the operational line extends beyond the final train station, but trains either don't use that section, or do use these sections, and simply travel to the end of the operational line, stop (but don't let passengers on or off) and then travel back again. * Some of the railways have sidings / train sheds mapped - these can be considered part of the overall railway, but aren't part of the route that passengers experience. Any thoughts? I've also used railway=heritage on some of the relations, as I think this could be more descriptive than railway=preserved (as sometimes the heritage lines operate on newly-built lines/diversions, rather than the exact historical old lines). Frankie -- Frankie Roberto Experience Designer, Rattle 0114 2706977 http://www.rattlecentral.com -- Frankie Roberto Experience Designer, Rattle 0114 2706977 http://www.rattlecentral.com ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Railway route relations
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Richard Mann < richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com> wrote: You went off-liste > Dammit. Can we change the reply-to settings? (or has that debate been done to death already?) > I'd think I'd propose an alternative service such as service=heritage (or > stick with service=regional): > type=line > line=rail > service=heritage > ref=abbreviated name of railway (it's not like there's going to be more > than one service on the line) > Hmm, looks like I have some re-tagging to do then (after having nearly completed the list at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_United_Kingdom_Independent_and_minor_railways ). Is there any sense to having a route relation AND a line relation on these types of railways? Frankie > > Richard > > > On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 3:54 PM, Frankie Roberto < > fran...@frankieroberto.com> wrote: > >> Richard Mann wrote: >> >> >>> The public transport schema says we should be tagging rail service >>> relations as: >>> >>> No route tag >>> line=rail >>> service = high_speed / long_distance / regional / commuter >>> ref = service reference >>> nat_ref = national timetable reference >>> >> >> Could anyone offer guidance on how this applies to 'heritage' railways? eg >> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/162879 and those listed on >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_United_Kingdom_Independent_and_minor_railways >> >> Some of the things I've noted: >> >> * The "routes" (in terms of the the route of the actual trains) usually >> match 1 to 1 with the physical "line", except: >> * Sometimes the operational line extends beyond the final train station, >> but trains either don't use that section, or do use these sections, and >> simply travel to the end of the operational line, stop (but don't let >> passengers on or off) and then travel back again. >> * Some of the railways have sidings / train sheds mapped - these can be >> considered part of the overall railway, but aren't part of the route that >> passengers experience. >> >> Any thoughts? >> >> I've also used railway=heritage on some of the relations, as I think this >> could be more descriptive than railway=preserved (as sometimes the heritage >> lines operate on newly-built lines/diversions, rather than the exact >> historical old lines). >> >> Frankie >> >> -- >> Frankie Roberto >> Experience Designer, Rattle >> 0114 2706977 >> http://www.rattlecentral.com >> >> > -- Frankie Roberto Experience Designer, Rattle 0114 2706977 http://www.rattlecentral.com ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Railway route relations
This seems to use: line=light_rail for S(tadt)-Bahn, when I think the schema suggests line=rail+service=commuter Were you going to pick up any of the service=* types, or is it too early for that? Richard On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 3:37 PM, Melchior Moos wrote: > Hi, > > 2009/7/8 Richard Mann > > The public transport schema says we should be tagging rail service >> relations as: >> >> No route tag >> line=rail >> service = high_speed / long_distance / regional / commuter >> ref = service reference >> nat_ref = national timetable reference >> >> Whereas oepnv-karte is seems to be rendering on the basis of: >> green for route=light_rail (being used for S-Bahn, ie service=commuter) >> yellow for route=train (being used for pretty much everything else) >> brown for route=railway (being used for odd leftover bits) >> >> The schema seems to allow the use of relations for infrastructure (use >> route=railway), but does not particularly encourage that. >> >> I would take it that actually the best approach is to tag as per the >> schema (using an Operator code for the ref until we think of something >> better), and hope/assume Melchior adds rendering support in due course? >> > > > > The tagging schema mentioned above is also supported. There is a list of > the recongnised tags available in the wiki (for now only in german, if > you're interested I will tanslate it): > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/%C3%96pnvkarte#Linien > > regards, > Melchior > ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Railway route relations
You went off-liste I'd think I'd propose an alternative service such as service=heritage (or stick with service=regional): type=line line=rail service=heritage ref=abbreviated name of railway (it's not like there's going to be more than one service on the line) Richard On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 3:54 PM, Frankie Roberto wrote: > Richard Mann wrote: > > >> The public transport schema says we should be tagging rail service >> relations as: >> >> No route tag >> line=rail >> service = high_speed / long_distance / regional / commuter >> ref = service reference >> nat_ref = national timetable reference >> > > Could anyone offer guidance on how this applies to 'heritage' railways? eg > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/162879 and those listed on > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_United_Kingdom_Independent_and_minor_railways > > Some of the things I've noted: > > * The "routes" (in terms of the the route of the actual trains) usually > match 1 to 1 with the physical "line", except: > * Sometimes the operational line extends beyond the final train station, > but trains either don't use that section, or do use these sections, and > simply travel to the end of the operational line, stop (but don't let > passengers on or off) and then travel back again. > * Some of the railways have sidings / train sheds mapped - these can be > considered part of the overall railway, but aren't part of the route that > passengers experience. > > Any thoughts? > > I've also used railway=heritage on some of the relations, as I think this > could be more descriptive than railway=preserved (as sometimes the heritage > lines operate on newly-built lines/diversions, rather than the exact > historical old lines). > > Frankie > > -- > Frankie Roberto > Experience Designer, Rattle > 0114 2706977 > http://www.rattlecentral.com > > ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Railway route relations
Hi, 2009/7/8 Richard Mann > The public transport schema says we should be tagging rail service > relations as: > > No route tag > line=rail > service = high_speed / long_distance / regional / commuter > ref = service reference > nat_ref = national timetable reference > > Whereas oepnv-karte is seems to be rendering on the basis of: > green for route=light_rail (being used for S-Bahn, ie service=commuter) > yellow for route=train (being used for pretty much everything else) > brown for route=railway (being used for odd leftover bits) > > The schema seems to allow the use of relations for infrastructure (use > route=railway), but does not particularly encourage that. > > I would take it that actually the best approach is to tag as per the schema > (using an Operator code for the ref until we think of something better), and > hope/assume Melchior adds rendering support in due course? > The tagging schema mentioned above is also supported. There is a list of the recongnised tags available in the wiki (for now only in german, if you're interested I will tanslate it): http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/%C3%96pnvkarte#Linien regards, Melchior ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Railway route relations
The public transport schema says we should be tagging rail service relations as: No route tag line=rail service = high_speed / long_distance / regional / commuter ref = service reference nat_ref = national timetable reference Whereas oepnv-karte is seems to be rendering on the basis of: green for route=light_rail (being used for S-Bahn, ie service=commuter) yellow for route=train (being used for pretty much everything else) brown for route=railway (being used for odd leftover bits) The schema seems to allow the use of relations for infrastructure (use route=railway), but does not particularly encourage that. I would take it that actually the best approach is to tag as per the schema (using an Operator code for the ref until we think of something better), and hope/assume Melchior adds rendering support in due course? Richard ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Railway route relations
Peter Miller schrieb: > Personally I see this being a very useful piece of information about the > Peterborough to Ely line and like the way the relation overlays on the > slippery map for more detail: > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/142758 (relation for Peter > to Ely line) I think we should use spaces in free-text only! Better use namespaces like line:classification or "_" as replacement for spaces line_classification! > I have done something similar for the Cambridgeshire Guided Busway which > I have found very useful > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/164711 Since this is not a bus-route/line but a busWAY, "collected way" type=street would fit better! http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:street ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Railway route relations
On 6 Jul 2009, at 21:24, Melchior Moos wrote: Hi, 2009/7/6 Brian Prangle I've experimented with the section of the West Coast Mainline between B'ham New St and B'ham International: I've added a train (i.e service) relation with ref=WCML and also a railway (i.e physical) relation with ref =17.01 ( the SRS for the section of track) to see how it rendered in opnvkarte. I'd appreciate people's opinions now the render engine has caught up. Personally I don't like it and I think the physical stuff is better tagged on the ways; opnvkarte is a public transport map and should show services My interest in infrastructure relations is not very high, the only reason I'm rendering them is, that there were (or maybe are) some service routes that are tagged with route=railway. Rendering them enables people to see the fault. The main focus of öpnvkarte lies on the service relations. I think the problem is that we are using the term Route for at least two different things. Are there not reasons why one might what to create a relation for the West Coast Main Line 'infrastructure/ physical/track' or the East Suffolk Line 'infrastructure/physical/ track' or a particular SRS section 'infrastructure/physical/track' as distinct from path used by a particular rail operator or by a particular public transport service? Should we not provide a way of doing both even if both are not always populated? Why do we not proposed a different way of coding relations for the railways, SRS sections etc and ensure that these are not rendered on opnvkarte rather than dump the whole idea? Personally I see this being a very useful piece of information about the Peterborough to Ely line and like the way the relation overlays on the slippery map for more detail: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/142758 (relation for Peter to Ely line) I have done something similar for the Cambridgeshire Guided Busway which I have found very useful http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/164711 Regards, Peter regards, Melchior ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Railway route relations
Hi, 2009/7/6 Brian Prangle > I've experimented with the section of the West Coast Mainline between B'ham > New St and B'ham International: I've added a train (i.e service) relation > with ref=WCML and also a railway (i.e physical) relation with ref =17.01 ( > the SRS dor the section of track) to see how it rendered in opnvkarte. I'd > appreciate people's opinions now the render engine has caught up. Personally > I don't like it and I think the physical stuff is better tagged on the ways; > opnvkarte is a public transport map and should show services > My interest in infrastructure relations is not very high, the only reason I'm rendering them is, that there were (or maybe are) some service routes that are tagged with route=railway. Rendering them enables people to see the fault. The main focus of öpnvkarte lies on the service relations. regards, Melchior ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Railway route relations
I'd agree with Brian; the infrastructure relations don't help. At last count the services using the line were: VT: Euston-Birmingham & Wolverhampton (aka EBW) (InterCity) XC: Manchester-Bournemouth (InterCity) LM: Northampton/Coventry-Birmingham (Regional locals; there's quite a bit of skip-stopping, but not a distinctive express service) ATW: Aberystwyth/Chester-Birmingham International (Regional Express) (and some WSMR too; InterCity) Getting those on a map (at least the hourly ones) will be complicated enough. I'd suggest using the TOC abbreviations as the ref for the moment. Calling it the WCML isn't really correct (the WCML proper goes Rugby-Nuneaton-Tamworth etc) Richard On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Brian Prangle wrote: > I've experimented with the section of the West Coast Mainline between B'ham > New St and B'ham International: I've added a train (i.e service) relation > with ref=WCML and also a railway (i.e physical) relation with ref =17.01 ( > the SRS dor the section of track) to see how it rendered in opnvkarte. I'd > appreciate people's opinions now the render engine has caught up. Personally > I don't like it and I think the physical stuff is better tagged on the ways; > opnvkarte is a public transport map and should show services > > Regards > > Brian > > ___ > Talk-transit mailing list > Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit > > ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
