Re: [Talk-us] Creating relations for abandoned railway lines
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 11:06:44PM +0100, andrzej zaborowski wrote: > On 10 January 2011 17:23, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 11:11 AM, Kristian M Zoerhoff > > wrote: > >> type = route > >> route = train > >> operator = Elgin & Belvidere Electric Co. > >> abandoned = yes > >> > >> It's that last tag I'm unsure of. Is abandoned = yes allowed/understood in > >> relations? > > > > I think what you want to use is route=railway, not route=train. The > > latter would include trackage (if any) owned by other companies that > > the E&BE used to reach downtown terminals, while the former would be > > the single line owned and operated by the E&BE. > > At some point route=historic was a preset or on the wiki (I don't > remember), I think it would work better here. > > Something like: > route=historic > historic=railway > following the convention of avoiding misleading the tools, which > usually just look at the one tag that interests them (route=railways > for example). I like this; it's certainly more accurate than saying abandoned=yes on the relation (which is incorrect, anyway; the ways are abandoned, but the relationship between them still holds). And not confusing the tools is always a good thing (I do engineering software support for a living, so I'm painfully aware of what happens when garbage goes in). -- Kristian Zoerhoff kristian.zoerh...@gmail.com ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Creating relations for abandoned railway lines
Hi, On 10 January 2011 17:23, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 11:11 AM, Kristian M Zoerhoff > wrote: >> type = route >> route = train >> operator = Elgin & Belvidere Electric Co. >> abandoned = yes >> >> It's that last tag I'm unsure of. Is abandoned = yes allowed/understood in >> relations? > > I think what you want to use is route=railway, not route=train. The > latter would include trackage (if any) owned by other companies that > the E&BE used to reach downtown terminals, while the former would be > the single line owned and operated by the E&BE. At some point route=historic was a preset or on the wiki (I don't remember), I think it would work better here. Something like: route=historic historic=railway following the convention of avoiding misleading the tools, which usually just look at the one tag that interests them (route=railways for example). Cheers ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Creating relations for abandoned railway lines
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 11:24:27AM -0500, Richard Weait wrote: > On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 11:11 AM, Kristian M Zoerhoff > wrote: > > Hi, all. > > > > I've been working on adding some abandoned railway lines in my area, and > > I've been wondering how to group them together. The line I'm working on > > right now (the former Elgin & Belvidere Electric Co. line) has been re-used > > in some areas as public streets, bike paths, service roads, and even a > > railway museum, so I've had to break the line into quite a few ways. I'd > > like to group them back together with a relation, but I'm not sure if > > anyone's done this for an abandoned railway line, or if this is even the > > right thing to do. My plan was to create a new relation like so: > > > > type = route > > route = train > > operator = Elgin & Belvidere Electric Co. > > abandoned = yes > > > > It's that last tag I'm unsure of. Is abandoned = yes allowed/understood in > > relations? > > Dear Kristian, > > It is most likely that no relation is required to group them together. > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Relations_are_not_Categories I've thought about this some more today, and I think this specific case does qualify as a relation. I'm not trying to group multiple, disparate lines operated by a railraod into a collection; there's just a single line, but due to adaptive reuse of the Right of Way, I've been forced to break it into multiple ways. I don't see this as much different from a state highway that travels on multiple streets, or even a road that's broken into multiple ways so one segment can be tagged as a bridge or tunnel. It's a singular, logical relation, from end-to-end. Now, if the E&BE had ever run multiple lines, then I can see the objection to putting them into a relation. That's not the case, however. I do see the need for care here. We don't want someone tagging every line operated by Union Pacific as being part of one huge relation, for example. However, tt would be perfectly acceptable (to me, anyway), to tag an individual named railroad subdivision with a relation, though, assuming it had to be broken into segments for things like bridges/tunnels. It's a fine line to walk, that's for sure. Oh, and I now see that I don't need to tag the relation as abandoned, as all the ways have this tag (except for the portion tagged as "preserved" at the Illinois Railway Museum). Anyway, there's still time to change my mind, as I have other things I want to clean up before I add this relation. Man, do I have a love/hate relationship with TIGER right now. -- Kristian Zoerhoff kristian.zoerh...@gmail.com ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Creating relations for abandoned railway lines
On 01/10/2011 11:05 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: “&” is not an abbreviation, so it should be “Elgin& Belvidere Electric Company” Say what? http://books.google.com/books?id=FI0pYAAJ&pg=PA390 Ah, indeed. The company is in fact called “Elgin and Belvidere Electric Company”. I had assumed that the name was correctly “Elgin & Belvidere”. Were that the case, it would be wrong to replace “&” with “and” on the mistaken idea that “&” is an abbreviation. —Alex Mauer “hawke” ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Creating relations for abandoned railway lines
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Alex Mauer wrote: > On 01/10/2011 10:23 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 11:11 AM, Kristian M Zoerhoff >>> >>> operator = Elgin& Belvidere Electric Co. >> >> This should be unabbreviated: Elgin and Belvidere Electric Company. > > “&” is not an abbreviation, so it should be “Elgin & Belvidere Electric > Company” Say what? http://books.google.com/books?id=FI0pYAAJ&pg=PA390 ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Creating relations for abandoned railway lines
On 01/10/2011 10:23 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 11:11 AM, Kristian M Zoerhoff operator = Elgin& Belvidere Electric Co. This should be unabbreviated: Elgin and Belvidere Electric Company. “&” is not an abbreviation, so it should be “Elgin & Belvidere Electric Company” —Alex Mauer “hawke” ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Creating relations for abandoned railway lines
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Richard Weait wrote: > It is most likely that no relation is required to group them together. > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Relations_are_not_Categories If that applies to this case, it would also apply to current railway lines, which I have seen many relations for. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Creating relations for abandoned railway lines
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 11:23:12AM -0500, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 11:11 AM, Kristian M Zoerhoff > wrote: > > Hi, all. > > > > I've been working on adding some abandoned railway lines in my area, and > > I've been wondering how to group them together. The line I'm working on > > right now (the former Elgin & Belvidere Electric Co. line) has been re-used > > in some areas as public streets, bike paths, service roads, and even a > > railway museum, so I've had to break the line into quite a few ways. I'd > > like to group them back together with a relation, but I'm not sure if > > anyone's done this for an abandoned railway line, or if this is even the > > right thing to do. My plan was to create a new relation like so: > > > > type = route > > route = train > > operator = Elgin & Belvidere Electric Co. > This should be unabbreviated: Elgin and Belvidere Electric Company. Good catch. > > abandoned = yes > > > > It's that last tag I'm unsure of. Is abandoned = yes allowed/understood in > > relations? > > I think what you want to use is route=railway, not route=train. The > latter would include trackage (if any) owned by other companies that > the E&BE used to reach downtown terminals, while the former would be > the single line owned and operated by the E&BE. Good point. EB&E used long-abandoned and paved over streetcar trackage at either end, which it did not own. I have no intention of tagging that trackage right now, though I may get to that at some point. -- Kristian Zoerhoff kristian.zoerh...@gmail.com ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Creating relations for abandoned railway lines
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 11:11 AM, Kristian M Zoerhoff wrote: > Hi, all. > > I've been working on adding some abandoned railway lines in my area, and > I've been wondering how to group them together. The line I'm working on > right now (the former Elgin & Belvidere Electric Co. line) has been re-used > in some areas as public streets, bike paths, service roads, and even a > railway museum, so I've had to break the line into quite a few ways. I'd > like to group them back together with a relation, but I'm not sure if > anyone's done this for an abandoned railway line, or if this is even the > right thing to do. My plan was to create a new relation like so: > > type = route > route = train > operator = Elgin & Belvidere Electric Co. > abandoned = yes > > It's that last tag I'm unsure of. Is abandoned = yes allowed/understood in > relations? Dear Kristian, It is most likely that no relation is required to group them together. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Relations_are_not_Categories Regarding "abandoned" see, http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Railway#Explanation_of_railway.3Dabandoned ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Creating relations for abandoned railway lines
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 11:11 AM, Kristian M Zoerhoff wrote: > Hi, all. > > I've been working on adding some abandoned railway lines in my area, and > I've been wondering how to group them together. The line I'm working on > right now (the former Elgin & Belvidere Electric Co. line) has been re-used > in some areas as public streets, bike paths, service roads, and even a > railway museum, so I've had to break the line into quite a few ways. I'd > like to group them back together with a relation, but I'm not sure if > anyone's done this for an abandoned railway line, or if this is even the > right thing to do. My plan was to create a new relation like so: > > type = route > route = train > operator = Elgin & Belvidere Electric Co. This should be unabbreviated: Elgin and Belvidere Electric Company. > abandoned = yes > > It's that last tag I'm unsure of. Is abandoned = yes allowed/understood in > relations? I think what you want to use is route=railway, not route=train. The latter would include trackage (if any) owned by other companies that the E&BE used to reach downtown terminals, while the former would be the single line owned and operated by the E&BE. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
