I did not propose to tag the *way* as commuter rail, but the *relations* > regarding these train connections. Commuter rail often uses the same rail > tracks as long distance services. That is why railway=rail is correct for > the ways; but IMHO route=commuter for the relations is interesting > information. > > Ah ofcoure, relation tagging makes sense.
> > It might be a better idea to have a classification system for the railway > lines depending on the type of usage. These could be applied to railway > route relations: > > A: Mixed Use (Passenger+Commuter+Freight) > A1: Primary route > A2: Secondary route > A3: Branch line > > B: Passenger services only (Passenger+Commuter) > B1: Primary route > B2: Secondary route > B3: Branch line > C: Commuter rail only (Commuter) > C1: High frequency route > C2: Low frequency route > > D: Urban rail (subway) > D1: Primary route > D2: Secondary/branch routes > > E: Tourism/Heritage service only > > F: Freight only > F1: Primary route > F2: Secondary route > F3: Branch line > > That makes it even more difficult to distinguish! What do you answer to > Janko's points? > Do you want to tag ways or relations with these tags? > > The ways continue to be railway=rail, the tags are on relations like you proposed. Only that an alphanumeric classification system makes more sense for a multilingual project. Words like commuter and subway have different meanings in different parts of the world. In India, a commuter train is called a 'local' or referred to as EMU's in the papers, the terms commuter and suburban are almost never used. The pitfall of not thinking ahead to include different usage classification is the addition of much more complicated tagging system later on. After route=commuter, someone a few years down will propose a usage=heavy/light or frequency=1/2/3 or branch_line=yes to sub classify the commuter route. The advantage of having verbose tags is thats its easy for humans to read., but in the process makes it difficult while tagging and is not scalable. > > I went through the wiki, and there seems like a ton of abandoned > proposals, so its possible this might have been discussed before. Someone > please point me to where all the action regarding this is happening, I > really want to classify the Indian railway network better. > > What do you think about what Wikipedia says about India here: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commuter_rail#Asia ? > > > There's not much detail in wikipedia regarding the finer aspects of the Indian railway system. I know the network pretty well and my proposal of usage tags was based on my own knowledge. cheers, -- j.mp/ArunGanesh <http://j.mp/ArunGanesh>
_______________________________________________ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
