Re: [Talk-us] Rail westerly
stevea wrote: Alexander Jones wrote: * I'm in the process of retracing most of the current and abandoned lines in the San Joaquin Valley south of Stockton. Especially on the BNSF line, don't waste your time. I'm not sure why you think this is waste of time, but I appreciate the heads-up that you are working here! I was trying to say, Let's not duplicate work. It's not a waste, but I wanted to let you know I was going to be remapping that segment anyway. * I generally use 7 tags: railway=rail, operator=, old_railway_operator=, name=, usage=, electrified=, and gauge=. Yes, I'll use owner= if known, and it is name= which displays in ORM as the name of the line. Many lines had name= as the service run upon them (like Caltrain instead of Union Pacific), and I have corrected this where I know it was wrong in OSM. But I haven't corrected all of these, just the ones I know. And now I think I'll have to go back and correct name=Union Pacific as the name of Union Pacific's subdivision for the line that Caltrain is run upon: Caltrain itself should be a relation. And so on. If Wikipedia is to be believed, Caltrain owns the track between San Francisco and Tamien Station, and the UP owns the track south to Gilroy. * I still use old-fashioned (according to OpenRailwayMap) route=railway relations for the tracks. I don't think the relations are rendered, but I'm not completely sure. But I keep the IDs in the org-mode files I use to manage my work, so I could always switch the tag out if needed. I didn't quite follow that (and I agree: it appears route relations are not rendered in ORM). Sorry. I was noting the software I use for managing my rail remap projects. Charlotte wrote: Thanks for the tip about openrailwaymap.org. I have aligned many railroads in Arizona and added many others. But I distrust the naming there, so I just have left that alone. Also, I don't know how to do relations, so, if you finish California, feel free to make relations in Arizona. Relations can be a challenge for some OSM contributors. While it is technically possible to edit relations with either iD or Potlatch 2, I don't recommend it, as the GUI is klunky, confusing and error-prone. JOSM is a much better editor to edit relations in OSM (imo), and while there is a learning curve that takes practice to get the hang of it, it is relatively short and is only a small mountain to conquer. You can do it! Learning JOSM is well worth it if you're going to do any complex mapping. Great to see this enthusiasm and good communication. SteveA California Alexander ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Rail westerly
On 2014-12-20 18:59, Natfoot wrote: Steve, If you are finding PCIX those are the call letters for the railroad that is the owner, they may also be the operator. Now here is the tricky bit, I will use the example of a local short line railroad. This railroad the property is owned by the county and the port; one railroad (GNPX) has the operating rights who then contracts with a second company that is a railroad (BDTL) yet the line in which they are running is known as another railroad (ESFR). If any of you can sort this out into the proper categories I think it will help a few many people. I'm also trying to get my head around a slightly simpler case. The Cincinnati Southern Railway [1] is owned by the City of Cincinnati and leased out to the Cincinnati, New Orleans Texas Pacific Railway (CNTP), a subsidiary of Norfolk Southern (NS). The relations -- one for each subdivision [2][3][4] -- don't indicate their ownership by the city anywhere. (`name` contains CNOTP and `operator=NS`.) It sounds like I would just need to add `owner=City of Cincinnati` to the relations. Would that be correct, or would the lessee go in `owner`? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinnati_Southern_Railway [2] http://osm.org/relation/2250839 [3] http://osm.org/relation/2250840 [4] http://osm.org/relation/1441409 -- m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Rail westerly
Alexander writes: I was trying to say, Let's not duplicate work. It's not a waste, but I wanted to let you know I was going to be remapping that segment anyway. Thanks. Good to be working with you! (And other OSM railfans in the USA). I'll stay away from / not edit this segment, but I'm beginning to better utilize your tagging inclinations as they seem to be correct OSM tagging and render better with ORM. ORM's tagging guidelines (on OSM's wiki) are clear that there are three distinct components in its section Railway Lines: Railway Lines are mapped with relations, and split between three categories that should not be mixed up: infrastructure, railway route, and train route. I had to re-read this part of this very comprehensive wiki a few times to get the hang of how to do these three relation styles (well, as a first cut in the USA, way tags for infrastructure, possibly a Railway Line relation -- some overlap here -- for physical infrastructure as well, and then two relations for Railway Route and Train Route.) This tagging scheme is extremely rich: it is well thought out and seems to work very well for Germany where it was developed (together with the ORM renderer), though there are provisions to make country-specific tagging schemes, too. Excellent! While I don't think we need to do this (yet?) in the USA, good that we can. So, a simplified first step is to tag ways (railway=rail, railway=tram, railway=light_rail, railway=subway...) with physical infrastructure tags (usage=main if true, service=siding if true...) and name=Subdivision Name (where known), possible with owner= and/or operator= tags as well. The richness of potential tagging includes signalling, interlocking, electrification, crossings... but while we should strive to enter these where known, they seem less important than this simplified first step. A complete first step would be to then get infrastructure relations complete. The second and third steps of Railway Route and Train Route (relations) can come later, but if there are routes known, they can proceed directly to relations -- though the physical infrastructure (whether as ways or relations) really must come first to do that. Clear as mud, right? (I think OSM finally has Caltrain about correct in California's Bay Area, but only perhaps these first two steps or so). The upshot/short version? I strongly believe this should be better worked on here in the USA to our rail, and that we have a LOT of work (research, surveys, editing...) to do to achieve this. Excellent project we have mapping our beautiful home planet, here: Go, OSM! SteveA California ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] Retail Example using OSM
Michaels craft stores http://www.michaels.com/store-locator ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
