It would be great if you'd invite the transit guys to join in this
discussion here.
Dave F.
On 16/10/2015 23:24, Richard Mann wrote:
If someone wants to continue this discussion on the public transport
list, feel free to start a discussion there. It's not appropriate for
this list.
___
If someone wants to continue this discussion on the public transport list,
feel free to start a discussion there. It's not appropriate for this list.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Hi Paul,
Am 2015-10-16 um 22:58 schrieb Paul Johnson:
> Not even sure how passenger_lines=* is even a tag given route=rail
> relations...
As far as I know, passenger_lines=* is intended as an tracks=*
replacement if each track is mapped. There is an ITO map which renders
passenger_lines=*. There
Not even sure how passenger_lines=* is even a tag given route=rail
relations...
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 6:02 AM, Dave F. wrote:
> I'm unsure of the difference between passenger_lines=* & tracks=*.
>
> Reading the wiki page, it appears the writer is confused as well, stating
> in the last paragra
A local railway corridor is having a third track added specifically to
carry freight. It can also carry passengers but that would be an
exception. It may have a 'lower-spec' for smoothness .. but in all
other regards it has at least the same speck.
There is some political pressure to encourage
Goods-only and empty-coaching-stock lines can be markedly lower-spec (such
that they cannot be used by passenger-carrying services), and are
effectively a subsidiary system. There aren't all that many examples left
in the UK.
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 12:02 PM, Dave F. wrote:
> I'm unsure of the d
I'm unsure of the difference between passenger_lines=* & tracks=*.
Reading the wiki page, it appears the writer is confused as well,
stating in the last paragraph, that the 'passenger' bit is redundant as
"all kinds of tracks connecting the same railway stations or junction
should be counted w
He has a new hobby - maxweight and maxheight on roads. Sounds harmless
enough, but I am a bit concerned about things like tagging a way with
traffic_sign=maxheight - not quite what is intended.
Example changeset: http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/34572136
//colin
On 2015-10-12 12:14,
You forgot Switzerland, where they not only have multiple gauges but
multiple supply systems, including 3-phase.
On 2015-10-12 12:14, Maarten Deen wrote:
> On 2015-10-12 12:05, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2015-10-12 11:09 GMT+02:00
> Colin Smale :
>
> about the sources of the other informat
On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 4:09 AM, Colin Smale wrote:
>
> I noticed he has unblocked himself and is working again, but in the
> new changeset I looked at yesterday "tracks=N" was no longer being added.
> Still not sure about the sources of the other information (electrification
> info, usage etc), m
On 2015-10-12 12:05, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
2015-10-12 11:09 GMT+02:00 Colin Smale :
about the sources of the other information (electrification info,
usage etc), maybe it's inside info, maybe it's a guess, or maybe he
is just widely-travelled.
not sure about usage, but electrification ca
2015-10-12 11:09 GMT+02:00 Colin Smale :
> about the sources of the other information (electrification info, usage
> etc), maybe it's inside info, maybe it's a guess, or maybe he is just
> widely-travelled.
not sure about usage, but electrification can often be seen in aerial
imagery (where hir
Same here, very similar message and very similar response
I noticed he has unblocked himself and is working again, but in the new
changeset I looked at yesterday "tracks=N" was no longer being added.
Still not sure about the sources of the other information
(electrification info, usage etc
I have received a private message from the user:
Hoi Maarten,
Met het aantal tracks wordt aangegeven het aantal sporen die parallel
aan elkaar liggen.
Tracks=1 = Enkelspoor Tracks=2 = Dubbelspoor Tracks=3 = Driesporig
Tracks=4 = Viersporig
Mvgr,
Wim
Translated:
The number of tracks i
Hi Colin,
Am 2015-10-10 um 14:07 schrieb Colin Smale:
> Oh by the way, user WJtW is still at it, most recently in Italy, filling
> in loads of detail tags on railways. No idea where the information comes
> from. But every segment he touches has tracks=N added, often with N>1 on
> routes already ma
Oh by the way, user WJtW is still at it, most recently in Italy, filling
in loads of detail tags on railways. No idea where the information comes
from. But every segment he touches has tracks=N added, often with N>1 on
routes already mapped with individual tracks.
@Michael Reichart, did you ge
Exactly, this is the core of the "complaint" about WJtW's work.
However, tracks=* is an accepted shortcut, somewhere between a single
way for the whole group and mapping individual tracks. Getting the
individual tracks right, with all the points/switches, sidings,
crossovers etc is a helluva j
On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 2:20 AM, Colin Smale wrote:
>
> User WJtW[1] has been making large numbers of edits to railways across
> Europe in the past few months, all with the changeset comment
> "Electrified". Most of them are adding tags like gauge=1435 which may well
> be right (although I have no
Colin Smale writes:
> It is not limited to tracks=2 by the way - I have seen examples of four
> tracks, all with tracks=4...
It could be worse: you could see three tracks, all with tracks=4. :-)
--
--my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com
Crynwr supports open source software
521 Pleasant
Thanks for contacting DWG, Michael.
It is not limited to tracks=2 by the way - I have seen examples of four
tracks, all with tracks=4...
--colin
On 2015-10-07 10:56, Michael Reichert wrote:
> Hi.
>
> Am 2015-10-07 um 10:03 schrieb Colin Smale:
>
>> I am not sure it would be vandalism
What is "track_detail=yes"? I can't find it anywhere in the (English)
wiki...
//colin
On 2015-10-07 11:11, Richard Mann wrote:
> I added track_detail=yes, to achieve much the same end. I haven't looked at
> railway tagging for a while, though.
>
> ___
I added track_detail=yes, to achieve much the same end. I haven't looked at
railway tagging for a while, though.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Hi,
Am 2015-10-07 um 10:24 schrieb Richard Mann:
> Putting tracks=1 on multiple parallel tracks is also potentially
> misleading. It's a method of tagging that's been superseded by drawing each
> line separately.
>
> So I took to adding passenger_lines=N, to avoid a compatability conflict. I
> on
Hi.
Am 2015-10-07 um 10:03 schrieb Colin Smale:
> I am not sure it would be vandalism - It is more likely a
> misunderstanding of the intention of the tracks=* tag. But it is very
> damaging, and potentially hard to revert as this has been going on for
> some time and newer edits may have been mad
Putting tracks=1 on multiple parallel tracks is also potentially
misleading. It's a method of tagging that's been superseded by drawing each
line separately.
So I took to adding passenger_lines=N, to avoid a compatability conflict. I
only did N=1 or N>=4, though.
I'd suggest converting the taggin
I am not sure it would be vandalism - It is more likely a
misunderstanding of the intention of the tracks=* tag. But it is very
damaging, and potentially hard to revert as this has been going on for
some time and newer edits may have been made. It may need something like
this:
* Get al
I have asked WJtW about this in june this year but received no answer.
Then I saw user BAGgeraar remove the tracks tag so I asked him about it
and he too asked WJtW and received no answer.
On the german forum there is a thread [1] about it also indicating it is
a superfluous tag when all tracks
Hi,
User WJtW[1] has been making large numbers of edits to railways across
Europe in the past few months, all with the changeset comment
"Electrified". Most of them are adding tags like gauge=1435 which may
well be right (although I have no idea of his source for this). However
on many occasio
28 matches
Mail list logo
