Dave has been quite rude, and completely dismissive of the value of
anything other than his interpretation of what the wiki states. Internet
etiquette is that you do not respond to rudeness, so I haven't.
Counting parallel lines is a pain, and trying to put the info into
relations is
On 16/08/2012 14:46, Richard Mann wrote:
Dave has been quite rude,
I believe you've confused the meanings of the words rude critical. I
initially asked a civil, simple question to which you've continuously
evaded giving a direct response. Any curtness on my part is due to your
repeated
Here's how I'd address the concerns in this thread:
tracks=*: number of tracks represented by the way having the tag, as per
wiki
total_tracks=*: number of tracks in the right-of-way of the rail line,
regardless of how many parallel ways exist. This sounds more like a tag
appropriate for a rail
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 12:31 PM, David ``Smith'' vidthe...@gmail.com wrote:
tracks=*: number of tracks represented by the way having the tag, as per
wiki
total_tracks=*: number of tracks in the right-of-way of the rail line,
regardless of how many parallel ways exist. This sounds more like
On Aug 14, 2012 6:43 AM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 12:31 PM, David ``Smith'' vidthe...@gmail.com
wrote:
tracks=*: number of tracks represented by the way having the tag, as per
wiki
total_tracks=*: number of tracks in the right-of-way of the rail line,
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 1:03 PM, David ``Smith'' vidthe...@gmail.com wrote:
A little bit of redundancy is fine if it makes the data significantly easier
to use, IMO.
Excepted that ITO map is interpreting the tag as it is documented. If
you zoom at the maximum [1], you will see that the
On 14/08/2012 11:13, David Fisher wrote:
Problem : if you check the data, you see that RM added the new tag but
did not revert his wrong interpretation of the old tracks.
Well, I'd see that as a side-issue, rather than a problem to be honest.
It was the only reason I initially contacted
On 14/08/2012 10:39, David Fisher wrote:
-- as RM also correctly points out, knowledge of the total number of
running tracks on a stretch of railway is useful for operational
reasons, as shown in the ITO map..
Actually the ITO map doesn't represent total numbers. It's representing
the wiki
On Aug 14, 2012 7:48 AM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 1:03 PM, David ``Smith'' vidthe...@gmail.com
wrote:
A little bit of redundancy is fine if it makes the data significantly
easier
to use, IMO.
Excepted that ITO map is interpreting the tag as it is documented.
I'm forwarding here the reply from Peter Miller, ITO World:
Personally I find the suggestion of total_tracks reasonably appealing
initially, however it would have to be repeated across all the tracks
which seems ugly and still doesn't say with
Well, ok, I probably didn't state that very clearly. My point was that the
ITO map is an example of the usefulness of counting the total number of
tracks, regardless of how the counting is actually achieved.
Also, my point about 'sniping' and 'mediation' was that the issue of an OSM
member not
On Tue, 14 Aug 2012, Pieren wrote:
Personally I find the suggestion of total_tracks reasonably appealing
initially, however it would have to be repeated across all the tracks
which seems ugly and still doesn't say with confidence which tracks
are connected.
The relation approach is clearer
On Aug 14, 2012 8:47 AM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm forwarding here the reply from Peter Miller, ITO World:
An automated approach would involve merging all close tracks and
figuring it out. Not trivial but quite computable in my view.
2012/8/11 Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com:
I've added track_detail=yes in places where there are tracks1 tags but the
lines are separately drawn. I've included some that have been there for a
while.
I've contacted the only people who I'm aware that use the tracks data
On 10/08/2012 23:30, Richard Mann wrote:
I've added track_detail=yes in places where there are tracks1 tags
but the lines are separately drawn. I've included some that have been
there for a while.
I've contacted the only people who I'm aware that use the tracks data
(itoworld) to see if
I've added track_detail=yes in places where there are tracks1 tags but the
lines are separately drawn. I've included some that have been there for a
while.
I've contacted the only people who I'm aware that use the tracks data
(itoworld) to see if deleting the tracks tags (or setting them all to
On 09/08/2012 00:03, Richard Mann wrote:
I've copied the info to a new passenger_lines tag, since it would
appear that some people would prefer to use the tracks tag for a
different purpose.
No, All users except you, for the reason it was created which is clearly
defined in the wiki.
For
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 1:03 PM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote:
Disappointing that you didn't rescind your track edits first
Then do it. The current tagging of your example with tracks=4 is simply wrong.
Pieren
___
Tagging mailing list
I think we're rapidly heading to mapping each track separately. They can
all be labelled as tracks=1 (though the wiki doesn't actually tell you to
do that), but that would be completely pointless. It might have some value
in the interim period, but the tag isn't used consistently enough to make
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Richard Mann
richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe I'd better just copy all the info in tracks=* into a new tag, and
let Dave set them all to tracks=1.
Instead of creating a new tag duplicating the information, you could also
create a relation
It feels more like a collection rather than a geospatial relation to me,
and (pace the conversation about refs on highways), it seems simpler to put
the info directly on the relevant ways, rather than making the ways a
member of a relation where the info is stored.
In general, I think
On 08/08/2012 13:14, Pieren wrote:
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Richard Mann
richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com
mailto:richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe I'd better just copy all the info in tracks=* into a new
tag, and let Dave set them all to tracks=1.
Instead of
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote:
Richard/Pieren
I'm failing to see what tracks=4 needs to be kept, especially in a relation.
I don't see the point of making a 'collection' of tracks.
Especially in relations as they're not meant to be used for
On 08/08/2012 16:41, Pieren wrote:
The relation would say these 4 tracks belong to the same railway.
I still don't see the point/benefit of this. In the quasi-nationalised
UK rail system all tracks across the country are owned to the same company
different journeys/operators are tagged
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote:
On 08/08/2012 16:41, Pieren wrote:
The relation would say these 4 tracks belong to the same railway.
I still don't see the point/benefit of this. In the quasi-nationalised UK
rail system all tracks across the country
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 12:23 PM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote:
On 08/08/2012 16:41, Pieren wrote:
The relation would say these 4 tracks belong to the same railway.
I still don't see the point/benefit of this.
From a cartographic point of view this could greatly ease the ability
to
While we're at it, what's traffic=fast on a rail line? What other values
could there be? Weren't we using service=* for this kind of thing?
Colin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 5:46 PM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote:
Are we agreed that tracks=4 on each individual
way to indicate the total number of tracks running side by side is wrong?
I think it's wrong (I think tracks=n on a way indicates how many
tracks that way represents).
__John
On 2012-08-08 18:46, Dave F. wrote :
The
discussion has gone off on a tangent (as it always seems to do :)
). Back to the original point - Are we agreed that tracks=4 on
each individual way to indicate the total number of tracks running
side by side is
I've copied the info to a new passenger_lines tag, since it would appear
that some people would prefer to use the tracks tag for a different purpose.
For those of you who don't have experience of train operations, I can
assure you that the number of tracks available for passenger operations
(and
Hi
A user in GB has been editing railway lines by adding tracks=4 even
though each individual track has been mapped:
www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/174899570
From the railway page of the wiki:
When modeling multi-track parallel railway lines in close proximity
they can either be modeled
At 2012-08-07 14:56, Dave F. wrote:
Hi
A user in GB has been editing railway lines by adding tracks=4 even
though each individual track has been mapped:
www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/174899570
From the railway page of the wiki:
When modeling multi-track parallel railway lines in close
I guess that'll be me.
The total number of tracks is a useful piece of data, whereas tracks=1 on
the four individual tracks is useless. I don't really mind where the
information is stored; the tracks tag looked like a sensible place to me
(and indeed was already being used in this way in some
Tracks is actually mostly used in the UK to tag the total number of tracks,
whether the lines have been individually mapped or not (this snapshot is a
few days old):
http://www.itoworld.com/map/14#lat=51.78185298480979lon=-0.5093040346167376zoom=7
___
On 08/08/2012 00:05, Richard Mann wrote:
...whether the lines have been individually mapped or not:
You're incorrect to think this. As I've said before it's used to clarify
how many tracks each way represents.
On 2012-08-07 23:56, Dave F. wrote :
Hi
A user in GB has been editing railway lines by adding tracks=4
even though each individual track has been mapped:
www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/174899570
From the
36 matches
Mail list logo
