Re: [Talk-us] Rail westerly
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 4:12 PM, Mike Henson mikehen...@hotmail.com wrote: Steve, I agree with Charlotte, In Oklahoma I am seeing a lot of different names on one rail road line like Charlotte is talking about. We need to figure out how we're going to map the new Eastern Flyer mass transit system http://easternflyer.com/ that's being put together by (of all people) Iowa Pacific Railroad. Especially since I'm not completely sure where the stations are in the towns it stops in (and we still have a jazz museum that's somehow impossibly broke essentially squatting Tulsa Station at this point). Eventually I want to set up an OpenTripPlanner instance to handle bicycle and mass transport trip planning on a statewide scale here. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Rail westerly
Paul Johnson wrote: We need to figure out how we're going to map the new http://easternflyer.com/Eastern Flyer mass transit system that's being put together by (of all people) Iowa Pacific Railroad. Especially since I'm not completely sure where the stations are in the towns it stops in (and we still have a jazz museum that's somehow impossibly broke essentially squatting Tulsa Station at this point). Eventually I want to set up an OpenTripPlanner instance to handle bicycle and mass transport trip planning on a statewide scale here. Paul, as I said in a previous post, there are sensible steps for entering rail data into OSM in the USA so they both render well in ORM and build good data structures for logic like OpenTripPlanner: 1) Name rail segments: tag with operator=Name of rail agency, name=Name of subdivision or line. Often, existing TIGER data for rail lines have name=Name of rail agency, so simply change the name= tag to operator= (keeping the value) and add a new name= tag which is the well-known name of the subdivision or line name of the rail segment (not the system name, owner or operator of the rail). 2) Assure that each railway= tag is correct: rail, light_rail, subway, tram, etc. Usually rail is correct, unless the rail is part of a network such as a light_rail, subway or tram system. 3) Assign a usage= tag to each named segment: main, branch, industrial, military or tourism. 4) Group identically-named segments together into a relation with type=route, route=railway. This is a relation for a NAMED RAIL. It is virtually always the case that all elements have the same usage= tag (on each of the member objects, not as a tag on the relation). 5) Create a DIFFERENT (from the one above) relation for each particular passenger service route (such as Eastern Flyer) containing all of the rail segments that make up that route. Don't forget to add all of the railway=station and/or public_transport=platform elements to this relation, too. This relation may also have additional tags such as from, to, via, ref and network. Do read up on public_transport, as there are legacy and newer ways to tag these, and your application may require a specific tagging scheme. By doing this, ORM, OpenTripPlanner (and others) have much or all of what they need. The GTFS specification and its OSM wiki page (as well as other, specific routing documentation) can fill in any additional details which may be needed. And, of course: have fun! SteveA California___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Rail westerly (Dave Mansfield)
What I'm not quite sure about are federal records such as FRA records (as I believe Oak Ridge data are). These would be covered under, say, a FOIA request, and so are quite similar to the same nexus argument as state records, only under federal law, not state law. Generally, I have had very good experience with the National Labs and other Federal Agencies by simply emailing them, explaing what OSM is, with a link to the ODBL, and asking for a clarification. Depending on the data consortium ( government / academic / commercial ), this may or may not be possible. For instance Landscan ORNL is 'proprietary'. http://web.ornl.gov/sci/landscan/landscan_faq.shtml#10 Just a note dealing with projections: There is a great service at http://prj2epsg.org/search I just pasted the '.prj' information into a text file with a 'prj extension, uploaded it, and it gave me the equivalent ( or closest guess) EPSG code. Then assign that CRS to the layer in QGIS ( or other GIS software of choice). Michael Patrick ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Rail westerly
this is where we need rail fans or rail professionals to correct us where we are wrong, as the structure of the network is what we are defining with these tags (main and branch), Oak Ridge National Laboratory: ... Railroad Network is a representation of the North American railroad system that contains every railroad route in the US, Canada, and Mexico that has been active since 1993. It is intended for logical network programming, traffic analyses, and mapping applications. Corporate structure, a key to the simulation of routing, is explicitly temporal, allowing historical studies and comparisons. Supporting data on interlines and corporate ancestry allow the construction of routable networks for a specific target date. The network is an extension of the Federal Railroad Administration's strategic network. Michael Patrick Geospatial Analyst ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Rail westerly
Michael Patrick writes: (about the Oak Ridge National Laboratory: ... Railroad Network data). I found these at: http://www-cta.ornl.gov/transnet/RailRoads.html And have downloaded (~10 megabytes) a zipped shapefile of the entire network (as well as the simplified 7 megabyte one which omits inactive lines and contains only current operators, but incorporates interlines as network links.) I knew there had to be something like this in the public domain, and I say thank you very much, Michael. I examine these in JOSM right now. First they need to be unzipped, and it looks like the (provided on that web page) PRJ file to change from WGS 84 (default) to either NAD 27 or 83 projection is required. I haven't done that to these data in the instant case, but I've fiddled these before and I think it is doable. Results in JOSM (after many seconds of load time) -- and JOSM MUST have the Shapefile plug-in -- do indeed display a nationwide network of rail lines. A sample one I chose (UP's Coast line in California, which I believe I have gotten mostly correct in OSM recently) has 30 rather cryptic (at first blush) tags, but these indeed look to be usable data. Geographically, yes, the rail line looks about correct though the tag structure will have to be seriously harmonized to become something to import into OSM. This starts to move (quickly) into the direction of a major import (and all its required vetting, etc.) into OSM. I ask others to help me determine the suitability of whether we might want to use these data. I imagine a fair bit of work would be required to harmonize the 30 tags into those we might deem appropriate for USA rail in OSM, as well as strategies for conflating them with existing TIGER rail data. It's a big, big, BIG job. On the other hand, I could see small segments in these data that interest local mappers being used to confirm names or actual track locations for existing data on a line-by-line basis, too. Thanks for really good discussion about this, Charlotte stepping up to make a wiki page, Michael's reference to these data and the great volunteer, cooperative and collaborative spirits we find in OSM here in the USA. SteveA California ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Rail westerly
Steve, Thanks to Michael for a great find and to you for trying to make it usable in OSM. It will be interesting to see what comes out of it. Sounds like we should hold off on any wiki work for a while. There is much data to examine, and I'm already doing stuff for HOT. I'd like to take a look at the materials for Arizona just to see if their names for lines correspond to what I'm seeing already from TIGER. Like I said before, we have time to make sure we're doing this right. Charlotte At 11:24 AM 12/31/2014, you wrote: Michael Patrick writes: (about the Oak Ridge National Laboratory: ... Railroad Network data). I found these at: http://www-cta.ornl.gov/transnet/RailRoads.html And have downloaded (~10 megabytes) a zipped shapefile of the entire network (as well as the simplified 7 megabyte one which omits inactive lines and contains only current operators, but incorporates interlines as network links.) I knew there had to be something like this in the public domain, and I say thank you very much, Michael. I'll examine these in JOSM right now. First they need to be unzipped, and it looks like the (provided on that web page) PRJ file to change from WGS 84 (default) to either NAD 27 or 83 projection is required. I haven't done that to these data in the instant case, but I've fiddled these before and I think it is doable. Results in JOSM (after many seconds of load time) -- and JOSM MUST have the Shapefile plug-in -- do indeed display a nationwide network of rail lines. As a sample I chose (UP's Coast line in California, which I believe I have gotten mostly correct in OSM recently) has 30 rather cryptic (at first blush) tags, but these indeed look to be usable data. Geographically, yes, the rail line looks about correct though the tag structure seriously will have to be harmonized to become something to import into OSM. This starts to move (quickly) into the direction of a major import (and all its required vetting, etc.) into OSM. I ask others to help me determine the suitability of whether we might want to use these data. I imagine a fair bit of work would be required to harmonize the 30 tags into those we might deem appropriate for USA rail in OSM, as well as strategies for conflating them with existing TIGER rail data. It's a big, big, BIG job. On the other hand, I could see small segments in these data that interest local mappers being used to confirm names or actual track locations for existing data on a line-by-line basis, too. Thanks for really good discussion about this, Charlotte stepping up to make a wiki page, Michael's reference to these data and the great volunteer, cooperative and collaborative spirits we find in OSM here in the USA. SteveA California ___ Talk-us mailing list mailto:Talk-us@openstreetmap.orgTalk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us Charlotte Wolter 927 18th Street Suite A Santa Monica, California 90403 +1-310-597-4040 techl...@techlady.com Skype: thetechlady ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Rail westerly
Yes, WGS84 because that’s what’s used by GPS (which was, after all, the original data source for OSM). Of course, then there’s the question of *which* WGS84 definition we’re talking about. You actually can’t assumed that current definitions of WGS84 and NAD83 are 1m difference. You can dip your toe into the complexity here: http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/CORS/Articles/WGS84NAD83.pdf Also note, that the satellite photography used for a great deal of OSM mapping has much less than 1m accuracy, and as you note, unless you’re using expensive GPS, you’re not likely to get 1m accuracy anyway. Relatedly, I’m curious if anyone has used one of these guys: http://gps.dualav.com/explore-by-lifestyle/outdoors/ d. On Dec 31, 2014, at 13:56, Dave Mansfield mansfie...@chartermi.net wrote: That brings up a good question. What datum is used by OSM? I would assume it's WGS 84. NAD 83 is within about a meter of WGS 84. That’s closer than the GPS units most of us have so would not cause much of an error if any. NAD 27 on the other hand could be off by as much as 180 meters. Dave -Original Message- From: stevea [mailto:stevea...@softworkers.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2014 2:24 PM To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org Cc: imports...@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Rail westerly I examine these in JOSM right now. First they need to be unzipped, and it looks like the (provided on that web page) PRJ file to change from WGS 84 (default) to either NAD 27 or 83 projection is required. I haven't done that to these data in the instant case, but I've fiddled these before and I think it is doable. SteveA California ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Rail westerly
A not-so-brief review of what has happened in the ten days since I brought this up. I have had fruitful conversations both on- and off-list with several responders to my shout out about improving rail in California (in OSM). Largely speaking, this resulted in better harmonization about what and how to tag existing (usually from TIGER) rail lines so they better render with the rich/vivid renderer ORM. I might also continue that conversation here in talk-us, glad as those who answered here are followed by more (regionally around the USA) as they might wish to further contribute to better USA rail. A larger gestalt approach seems next, one mightily contributed to with many broad voices. Regionally diverse, containing an intersection of rail fans and rail professionals and active in their area mappers as a good start. A new OSM WikiProject, anyone? We are getting better at identifying what to put into the name= owner= and operator= tags, as rail ownership and usage (sometimes via leasing agreements, public ownership/private usage or vice versa and complex trackage usage arrangements) can be opaque and difficult to determine. This still seems like an endeavor of do our best, even as it results in needing continuing conversation. California's Public Utilities Commission crossing data spreadsheet (13,500 rail crossings in our state) is a helpful beginning to this. However, it contains old/obsolete data and refers to disused/abandoned tracks as if they have live rail operations. Much can be done with the tedious tracing of an entire line along its length via its road/ped crossings, making this sort of work possible, but fraught with the peril of errors and tedium. It remains subjective interpretation as to what constitutes usage=main and/or usage=branch on some rail segments. It may or may not be the case that major (e.g. Amtrak) passenger rail always gets usage=main, or even usage=branch. Usually it is one or the other, but not always. Also, there are segments with Main Line in their name which have light industrial (or even no) rail traffic where it seems the semantics of usage=main does not readily apply. This may result in a usage=branch (or even usage=industrial) tag on a line with name=XYZ Railroad Mainline. The ORM tagging wiki suggests that a hierarchy of relations be applied: infrastructure, railway route and train route. In the USA, our TIGER data entered rail infrastructure as tags on ways rather than as ways collected together as members in an infrastructure relation. While this differs from the suggested ORM tagging, I believe it is OK to continue with this methodology in the USA: rail tags on ways, railway routes and train routes in route relations. ORM renders with this slightly different tagging just fine, as do most renderers with a similar structure (e.g. the way the USA tags highways with way tags and routes with relations). When I started this ten days ago, California rail in OSM via ORM looked highly incomplete to me: perhaps what might roughly be called 35% done. Now, San Diego, the Bay Area (especially) from about Santa Rosa to Salinas and (to a lesser extent) greater Los Angeles look much, much better. The Central Valley continues to improve, and far northern California is still in need of attention, but I would say California rail in OSM is now something like 60% done. That's a fair improvement for ten days of occasional hobbyist effort during a holiday period and encourages me that other volunteers who wish to do a similar improvement of their area's rail might get a lot done in a relatively short period of time. I may continue to tap away at improving California rail, but it is a large mountain to climb. Obviously, for the whole of the fifty states, it is a very, very large mountain. One step at a time: be encouraged, not discouraged! Truly, if anybody is looking for a meaty project (which might very naturally become a new WikiProject), please consider putting some effort into improving rail in the USA along these lines. Yes, ORM rendering only daily and the vast number of track miles makes this slow going, but IMHO, results are well worth the effort. SteveA California ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Rail westerly
Steve, Yes, any explanation of the difference between main and branch lines and owner is appreciated. I find myself rather confused at the moment. For instance, why does the BNSF line across Arizona and into New Mexico change to Gallup Subdivision at one point to the west of the city of Gallup? It seems to be still the BNSF main line. Further, other subdivisions, such as the Springerville (Ariz.) Subdivision, clearly seem to be branches. So, when is a line a subdivision? If I get a handle on this and other distinctions, I can make corrections (or explanations) ... I think. Best wishes, Charlotte At 11:17 AM 12/29/2014, you wrote: Hello Nathan, Tod, Alexander, Minh and Charlotte: Thank you for responding to my talk-us posts about rail. I'm having multiple conversations about this, to a large extent with Alexander Jones, as he is emerging as a local expert (well, more experienced) w.r.t. rail in OSM. Especially with how it renders with ORM. There are many good resources (public, and compatible with OSM's ODBL) to use, both in California (and perhaps YOUR state!) and federally. For the latter, Alexander recommends http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/OfficeofSafety/publicsite/crossing/xingqryloc.aspxhttp://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/OfficeofSafety/publicsite/crossing/xingqryloc.aspx . He also has (and has sent to me, please ask him) an excellent spreadsheet which flatten/simplify what might be called a good first cut at a branching structure. I have also found truly complete, excellent (down to signals, etc.) rail maps on rail fan sites. These essentially give us all we need (one was in .kmz format, which JOSM simply read and could almost be imported directly into OSM). However, they are specifically copyrighted and not compatible with OSM's ODBL, alas I almost feel I cannot even continue to view such documentation, lest it pollute OSM with copyrighted data (similar to looking at Google Maps, which I strenuously avoid!) What this means is that the data are out there and that dedicated persons can compile them with research and patience. So, OSM volunteers can do this, but it WILL be a LOT of work. I agree with Nathan that usage=main and usage=branch can be quite tricky to know how to tag, and that there appears to be an essentially subjective interpretation about which tag (if any of these) is appropriate for any given line. I am in the process of writing a ten day review post to talk-us about this, which I will post after I send all of you this email. USA rail in OSM is a large subject to tackle, which will take a great deal of effort by many. The essential step of better understanding, agreeing amongst ourselves and harmonizing all of the tagging necessarily comes first. I propose a new WikiProject, but I do not have the bandwidth to do this all by myself, as I remain busy with our USBRS WikiProject. To address MInh's question about Cincinnati, CNOTP and NS, I'd say that owner=City of Cincinnati is correct, and operator=NS and name=CNOTP capture it accurately. But this is just one of many examples of how difficult these often complex leasing/ownership/operator arrangements can be with rail. In short, I am interested in continuing this, but with limits to my abilities to do so. I invite all of you to please stay in touch with me and each other about this if you like, and even to recruit other OSM volunteers to better coordinate what might become a more formal effort, whether in California, another state or region, or over the whole of the USA. And if anybody starts a WikiProject for USA rail, I'd be thrilled! Best regards, Steve All Santa Cruz, California Charlotte Wolter 927 18th Street Suite A Santa Monica, California 90403 +1-310-597-4040 techl...@techlady.com Skype: thetechlady ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Rail westerly
Hi Charlotte (and talk-us, and apologies for the length of this): Yes, any explanation of the difference between main and branch lines and owner is appreciated. I find myself rather confused at the moment. It is complicated. The owner= tag is for the actual landowner of the railroad. This usually includes land (maybe twenty to a hundred or so feet on either side of the rails, sometimes -- but certainly not always -- a polygon tagged landuse=railway), tracks, ballast, ties and signalling equipment. Due to the real complexities of ownership (which may be private, like a railway corporation, e.g. Union Pacific, BNSF -- there are hundreds -- or public, like Port of Oakland, Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission, hundreds of others), owner= can be hard to determine, but there is always only one owner. Adding to the complexity, there are also leasing agreements the owner may arrange with other entities (again, potentially both public and private) like railway companies, public agencies, and so on. These leasing / trackage rights arrangements are where it can make sense to add an operator= tag to a rail way with an owner= tag, if they are different. The name= tag often includes the subdivision name of the line of the rail. There is a hierarchy, but it is loose: at the top is a rail company (again, like Union Pacific or BNSF). These owners (but could also be operators) often are referred to as a Primary Rail Organization as a top-level entity. There are various abbreviations for these, like UP and BNSF, or even TTBART for Bay Area Rapid Transit, and I'm not sure what (federal?) standardization there is for all of these abbreviations, but they do seem to be largely consistent across much of the documentation I see. It seems like it might make sense to put these abbreviations into a ref= tag, but while I haven't seen that widely done, it is beginning to happen (perhaps for shield tagging like we see with MapQuest Open?) OK, so below owner/operator/ref (the Primary Rail Org), there is what is known as Division or Line name. And below that, there is Subdivision, especially among the very large/major railroads like UP and BNSF: these majors almost always have both Divisions and Subdivisions. However, medium-sized and smaller railroads might go straight to Subdivision as the next level down from their top-level ownership -- they might even go straight to something they call Lead or Line. Below Subdivision is Lead or Line Name. These are usually spurs and small industrial segments that branch off of usage=main or usage=branch segments. It is these names (except the Primary Rail Org, which goes into the owner= and/or operator= tag), especially Subdivision, is what should be put into the name= tag. This holds true for infrastructure (ways in OSM with a railway=rail tag) which is also tagged usage=main AND usage=branch, which I'll get to below. Now, it is also true that if an industrial lead (like Spreckles Industrial Lead) is actually named that, EVEN IF it is a branch/spur off of a usage=main or usage=branch (its usage tag should be usage=industrial or service=spur) you should put the name of it into the name tag. So in the above example, the spur off of the Union Pacific's main line through Salinas (with tags name=Coast Subdivision and usage=main) has name=Spreckles Industrial Lead. I know, it is confusing, but I think you can get the hang of it. Just enter owner= as the Primary Rail Org (unless there is a leasing agreement, in which case you might also use an operator= tag), and put into the name= tag the name of the line which is usually a Subdivision or Lead/Line name. Now, adding a usage tag (usually usage=main, usage=branch or usage=industrial) is even more tricky: it isn't really clear what is usage=main or branch, especially in the USA. Often, usage=industrial is more straightforward, especially if it is clearly a small (often urban) spur off of a main or branch line that disappears into or along the edge of buildings in an industrial zone. So, a place to start thinking about where to add usage=main are the major lines of the major railroads which connect larger geographic areas: not county-to-county, but more like state-to-state or region-to-region. We (in the USA) are just going to have to figure this out as we go, as it is a bit of subjective interpretation where to best add the usage=main tag. At a hierarchical level distinctly below usage=main is usage=branch. Sometimes, it will be clear after sketching out a major line being usage=main that there is a branching structure that has rail connecting or radiating outward from the usage=main tracks, and it may very well be that adding usage=branch to these segments is correct. (Alexander Jones' work in the Central Valley illustrates this). But again, we are going to have to feel this out as we go along. This is where we need rail fans or
Re: [Talk-us] Rail westerly
Steve, Thanks for sparking my interest here. I had started working on some rail segments around my home town of Plymouth, NC, but after reading your original message I went back and completed those and verified other segments along the branch including those around the state port in Morehead City. I hope to complete all the tracks in Eastern North Carolina although I know there's at least one other person who has been working on these lines in the past. I'd enjoy hearing more about your work out in California. --Eric ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
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
Re: [Talk-us] Rail westerly
Alexander Jones wrote: So, that's you? I've spent the past year-plus remapping rail lines in the Central Valley. Right now, I'm finishing up the BNSF Mojave Subdivision towards Barstow. A few tips: * Please use the subdivision name where available. Using the railroad as the name is redundant when the operator tag is set. I use the CPUC rail crossing data [1] to find subdivision names. Thanks, Alexander: I had visited Union Pacific's web site to find some of these, but they keep them locked up under username and password access only. Your CPUC pointer is an excellent public resource and very much appreciated (Microsoft Excel or OpenOffice is needed to open it). Rail System and then Division or Line are the critical columns containing the data I've been looking for. I guess (but don't know) that other states besides California have similar data available through their Public Utilities Commission (or equivalent). I agree with you: name= as the name of the railroad (owner) is incorrect, as a subdivision name is preferred, but in the event the way has no name= tag, I suppose it is better than nothing. But let us continue on to correcting with subdivision names where we can! * 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! * The way I see it, passenger lines are not automatically usage=main. But I don't know of any passenger lines in California, except the Sprinter in North SD County, that couldn't be seen as main lines. Yes, it is a tentative logical mapping on my part to cautiously treat major (Amtrak's Pacific Surfliner, Coast Starlight, California Zephyr...) and regional or commuter (Metrolink, Coaster...) passenger rail infrastructure as usage=main. I reserve usage=branch for well-identified (and logically in the network of rail's connectivity) branch rail. If something is distinctly a light rail (SPRINTER, San Diego Trolley, VTA's trains in Silicon Valley...) we tag usage=light_rail. Similar to tagging highways minimally on the ways and putting routing data (track infrastructure plus stops/platforms as members) in a relation IS a more correct method to do this, in my opinion. Again, ways get name=Subdivision, operator= ,owner= , THEN tag actual passenger routes with a route relation. Infrastructure tags on ways, route tags on a relation. (Say it like a mantra!) * 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. * 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). * Overall, this is much needed work. Thanks for helping the rail quality in California! Yeah! Let's drum up others doing this in other states. Kansas City has shaped up as a major hub, and Chicago, which I KNOW to be a major hub, still looks to be in its infancy w.r.t. proper infrastructure tagging. It would be really cool to see the USA's only high-speed line (Amtrak's Acela service in the Northeast Corridor) to light up red in ORM. NathanP wrote: Thanks Steve, I am working on what I can. Would like to have some discussion on proper tuning of relations. Many of these open railway map tags are new to me. There is an excellent and quite complete tagging documentation page at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OpenRailwayMap/Tagging . Additional specific questions? Ask here or off-list (either me, Alexander, or others who have been doing this and emerge as more knowledgeable). 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
Re: [Talk-us] Rail westerly
On Dec 20, 2014, at 12:35 PM, stevea wrote: 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. I was under the very strong impression that the main line from San Jose to San Francisco is owned by the Joint Powers Board (CalTrain) and not by Union Pacific. I believe that there are branches off that owned by Union Pacific and maybe even BNSF but that the main right of way was actually Caltrain's. Any place one could confirm or deny that? ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Rail westerly
Hey guys, Some words of support and complication. The usage=main is a problem, and here is why: What people consider to be main line can not and will not be known by looking at it in real life nor specified by whether or not it has passenger service on it. As such you can also have main line enter a yard disappear in yard limits and have it continue on the other side. If you can find a map like this http://www.bnsf.com/customers/pdf/maps/carload_map.pdf you will at least know what tracks are primarily used these may be main or branch traffic. Branch traffic may have main track within it. Also short line railroads complicate as what they consider main line is different then the class one railroads. I wish that the railroads listed above in the open railway would have updated from last night as I could show examples of my local knowledge and a little more. Best Regards, Nathan P. On Sat, Dec 20, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Tod Fitch t...@fitchdesign.com wrote: On Dec 20, 2014, at 12:35 PM, stevea wrote: 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. I was under the very strong impression that the main line from San Jose to San Francisco is owned by the Joint Powers Board (CalTrain) and not by Union Pacific. I believe that there are branches off that owned by Union Pacific and maybe even BNSF but that the main right of way was actually Caltrain's. Any place one could confirm or deny that? ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Rail westerly
On Dec 20, 2014, at 12:35 PM, stevea wrote: 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. Tod Fitch replies: I was under the very strong impression that the main line from San Jose to San Francisco is owned by the Joint Powers Board (CalTrain) and not by Union Pacific. I believe that there are branches off that owned by Union Pacific and maybe even BNSF but that the main right of way was actually Caltrain's. Any place one could confirm or deny that? Let's suppose Joint Powers Board is the owner. Does that mean that owner=Joint Powers Board, operator=Caltrain (and a route relation for Caltrain's services: Baby Bullet and Local) is correct? What do we put into the name= tag? A subdivision name? Perhaps Joint Powers Board (as well as, or instead of the owner tag)? As I look in the (excellent) CPUC_Rail_Crossing_List_v20140603.xls document recently pointed to, I find no occurrence of Joint Powers Board in the whole sheet. Though, I do recognize it as a real entity that administers the Caltrain service (and it may own the track, too). I do find PCIX: Caltrain in the Rail System column, though, so that is a good indication we might put PCIX, Caltrain, or PCIX:Caltrain in the name= tag. It seems we are still a little unclear on how to (fully, properly) tag rail in the USA, with California trying to be a leader in OSM (again), but at least this discussion seems to be getting us closer. Good! SteveA California ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Rail westerly
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. If I had to sort out the problem in the past email I would say that it is probably laid out as such: Join Powers Board is the landowner CalTrain is the owner, operator, and UP has operational rights to the corridor. Best Regards, Nathan P On Sat, Dec 20, 2014 at 6:13 PM, stevea stevea...@softworkers.com wrote: On Dec 20, 2014, at 12:35 PM, stevea wrote: 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. Tod Fitch replies: I was under the very strong impression that the main line from San Jose to San Francisco is owned by the Joint Powers Board (CalTrain) and not by Union Pacific. I believe that there are branches off that owned by Union Pacific and maybe even BNSF but that the main right of way was actually Caltrain's. Any place one could confirm or deny that? Let's suppose Joint Powers Board is the owner. Does that mean that owner=Joint Powers Board, operator=Caltrain (and a route relation for Caltrain's services: Baby Bullet and Local) is correct? What do we put into the name= tag? A subdivision name? Perhaps Joint Powers Board (as well as, or instead of the owner tag)? As I look in the (excellent) CPUC_Rail_Crossing_List_v20140603.xls document recently pointed to, I find no occurrence of Joint Powers Board in the whole sheet. Though, I do recognize it as a real entity that administers the Caltrain service (and it may own the track, too). I do find PCIX: Caltrain in the Rail System column, though, so that is a good indication we might put PCIX, Caltrain, or PCIX:Caltrain in the name= tag. It seems we are still a little unclear on how to (fully, properly) tag rail in the USA, with California trying to be a leader in OSM (again), but at least this discussion seems to be getting us closer. Good! SteveA California ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Rail westerly
Thanks Steve, I am working on what I can. Would like to have some discussion on proper tuning of relations. Many of these open railway map tags are new to me. -Nathan NathanP On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 8:10 PM, stevea stevea...@softworkers.com wrote: I'm beginning to channel California rail, especially mainline, branch, naming operators and owners and having routes be well established as relations. I use openrailwaymap.org to do this. The USA could use some, ahem, tuning up. Much work ahead. SteveA California ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
