Trams used to be just done as a simple tag on the road way, but they have slowly been converted to having their own OSM ways (one for each track). I haven't been paying attention; there might not be many of the original method left.
I'd probably draw it as four parallel ways, and regard the white line as effective separation. I don't think the tags for busways are entirely settled yet. Some in the UK are highway=service+access=no+psv=yes+name=Busway, but the one in Cambridge uses highway=bus guideway+psv:guided=only, which shows up in bright blue at zoom 13 in the default rendering, but isn't recognised by many data users. {I'd probably suggest that the blue rendering should be based on something other than the highway tag, but that's another matter}. Richard On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 11:33 PM, Fernando Trebien < fernando.treb...@gmail.com> wrote: > I assume there is no opposition to either method then. > > Most tram systems are mapped as individual ways (usually in parallel > pairs), even when they share space with cars and have no physical > separation. I'm not really acquainted with tramway mapping (they're > very rare in Brazil), but I tried to sample various cities (see list > below) and what I found is that, where the street is drawn as a single > way and cars share space with trams, a platform that is a physical > divider essentially never really causes the road to be drawn as > separated lines. The road is usually divided for its entire length for > other reasons (I'm guessing it's usually due to local law requiring > cars to stay out of the tramway except when turning at intersections > or reaching a destination at the opposite side). > > This suggests it is ok to map the BRT system in Porto Alegre as bus > lane tags on the main ways. However, the map would show a platform on > the left side of the way that on reality is on the right side of the > buses as they arrive. By mapping as a separated way, one can render a > bus map where lines are clearly identified as going through the > corridor (faster, reachable only by the middle platforms) or through > the main ways (slower, reachable by the sidewalk). So I think mapping > separately has more practical value. > > Here's the list of cities I've sampled: Moscow, Saint Petersburg, > Toronto, Melbourne, Berlin, Paris, Milan, Brussels, Antwerp, > Amsterdam, The Hague, Stuttgart, Bremen, Leipzig, Dresden, Hanover, > Zürich and Manchester. A few odd cases I found that you might want to > check out: > > 52.3545998 4.8884183 Highway and railway tags mixed on same line (akin > to maping bus lanes with tags on the main way) > 52.0680083 4.288239 Same as previous > 43.6513302 -79.3843008 Highway and railway are overlapping ways > (probably bad practice, and also seems to break the logic of "one line > for each rail track") > 53.0806042 8.8297144 Tramway space can be used by non-rail public > service vehicles > > On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 6:20 AM, Richard Mann > <richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Map it one way or the other (I'd say either was acceptable), but don't > > switch repeatedly between the two. > > > > There are many tram systems which only really separate from the road at > > stops, with much less separation between stops than your clear white > line. > > > > On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 3:20 AM, Fernando Trebien > > <fernando.treb...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> I'd like to hear your opinion on how to properly represent my > >> hometown's (Porto Alegre) bus rapid transit (BRT) system, which is > >> slightly unusual. > >> > >> The system consists of bus lanes (buses can switch to/from main > >> traffic at any point and do so almost at will along several stretches) > >> that become separated from the main ways next to platform/stops, which > >> act as physical barriers. Check either: > >> - an illustration: http://i.imgur.com/O4MaQhK.jpg > >> - the reality: > >> > https://maps.google.com/maps?layer=c&cbll=-30.008432,-51.183492&cbp=12,84.21,,0,7.43 > >> > >> If strictly following OSM's conventions on separation of ways [1], I > >> think it would be represented as lanes:psv=* on many (but not all) > >> spans of the main ways, with highway=service ways only next to > >> platforms. > >> > >> After some research, I think this would be a rare, perhaps unique > >> ("weird") mapping of a BRT system in OSM. Here > >> [http://i.imgur.com/RLdZgDk.png] is an comparison of several major BRT > >> systems in reasonably well mapped areas of the world. All of those > >> systems are correctly mapped as separated service ways because there > >> is continuous physical separation between the busways and main > >> traffic. So I'm wondering if, for clarity, my hometown's case > >> could/should be mapped "as if" there is continuous physical > >> separation, like almost everywhere else. > >> > >> Notes: > >> > >> In my comparison table, Mexico City's and Jakarta's BRT systems' stops > >> are highlighted because they probably qualify as "bus stations" [2]. > >> > >> Buenos Aires' system is quite similar to Porto Alegre's. They use a > >> variety of physical structures between bus lanes and regular lanes, > >> but I'm not sure if the smallest ones are considered "physical > >> separators" in Argentina. In case they are not, it would turn out as > >> the same "weird" situation as in my hometown in some places. The > >> Brazilian separators are quite different, but their status as > >> "physical separators" is well agreed upon. [3] > >> > >> An opinion [4] made me wonder if highway=service is indeed adequate > >> for these bus tracks. They really don't provide local access to > >> "sites" (parking lots, private properties, bus stations, etc.). > >> Instead, they allow people to move across vast distances around the > >> city, just like regular roads. Maybe they should be > >> highway=unclassified as in Brisbane. > >> > >> I know that Cleveland has a BRT system based solely on bus lanes, but > >> with no separation from main traffic next to platforms. > >> > >> To help anyone interested, below are coordinates of areas that I > >> consider "representative examples" of each of those BRT systems. They > >> are good starting points for exploration. > >> > >> -27.4785878 153.0205546 Australia/Brisbane/South East Busway > >> 45.4064414 -75.6642915 Canada/Ottawa/Transitway > >> -34.5922814 -58.4407038 Argentina/Buenos Aires/Metrobus > >> 34.1812658 -118.5534848 USA/Los Angeles/Orange Line > >> -23.6915090 -46.5570539 Brazil/São Paulo/Corredor ABD > >> -25.4359510 -49.3072766 Brazil/Curitiba/Linha Verde > >> 49.4409999 1.0825457 France/Rouen/TEOR > >> 47.2060680 -1.5388248 France/Nantes/Busway (line 4) > >> 52.2340794 0.1350110 UK/Cambridge/The Busway > >> -23.0003967 -43.3829705 Brazil/Rio de Janeiro/TransOeste > >> -23.5620123 -46.6124021 Brazil/São Paulo/Expresso Tiradentes > >> -6.1878222 106.8229964 Indonesia/Jakarta/TransJakarta Corridor 1 > >> 19.4036069 -99.1692696 Mexico/Mexico City/Metrobus lines 1-3 > >> > >> [1] > >> > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Editing_Standards_and_Conventions#Divided_highways > >> [2] > >> > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Public_Transport#Station > >> [3] > >> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-br/2013-December/004837.html > >> [4] > >> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2010-November/005799.html > >> > >> -- > >> Fernando Trebien > >> +55 (51) 9962-5409 > >> > >> "Nullius in verba." > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Tagging mailing list > >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org > >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Tagging mailing list > > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > > > > > -- > Fernando Trebien > +55 (51) 9962-5409 > > "Nullius in verba." > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging