On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 10:31 AM, Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org> wrote:
> Portland also needs help. Seems whenever the map gets fixed, someone goes > through and stomps the name back to something incorrect like "Metropolitan > Area Express" or "Portland Streetcar" instead of the subdivision name, and > pull things like putting the line of the service running on the tracks as > ref=*. God help you if you actually try to point it out, Grant Humphries > or Peter Dobratz will get bitchy about it... > For those following along from home, please see the following note in Portland, Oregon: http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/335545 As you can see, I closed out this note (twice). The issues in this note are too vague and refers to the whole Portland metropolitan area. Also, the actual area where this note is located is a new section of track which is not scheduled to be operational until September 2015. There are a bunch of things in this immediate area with construction or proposed tags since the area is still very much in flux. There was a similar situation which I resolved a few months ago. Paul put some OSM notes in downtown Portland saying he objects to the use of oneway=yes tags on OSM Ways for Portland area light rail and street car lines. I looked into the history and determined that there were a few cases where Grant Humphries had added the oneway=yes tag and Paul had came back later and removed the oneway=yes tag, only to have Grant Humphries add the oneway=yes tag in a subsequent edit. I sent OSM private messages to both Grant and Paul in December. Paul never responded to my OSM private message on this subject. However, I did have a productive conversation with Grant. Grant was not even aware that he had been undoing some of Paul's edits. In any case, we came to the agreement that oneway=yes does not make sense for Portland area railways and I removed the tag as part of my effort to update the route relations to use the new route_master format with a separate route relation for each direction of travel. For what it's worth, there are actually signs on the ground that tell pedestrians to look both ways before crossing these train tracks and the new route relations implicitly include the standard direction of travel along the railway because the rail segments are added to the relation in the other they are traversed. However, in the case of the above note, I can't discern exactly which tags Paul is objecting to, nor can I find any specific information on the OSM wiki about exactly what should be in the name tag on railways. In the note, Paul says "It's not rocket surgery to create the relations and have things named like "Banfield Mainline" like it's supposed to be instead of "Metropolitan Area Express", which is wrong." I have no idea what Paul is talking about here. The phrase "Banfield Mainline" does not occur in the OSM wiki, and I can't find anything on the internet to indicate exactly what tracks would be best referred to as the "Bainfield Mainline." I moved to Portland about 9 months ago, I often hear these tracks colloquially referred to as the "MAX", which is an acronym for "Metropolitan Area Express." Or maybe "MAX" just refers to the name of the trains that run on those tracks. I do not have any objections to updates to Portland area railways to be more correct/complete and/or consistent with the work SteveA is doing in California. For anyone doing these edits, it would be helpful to check the OSM history on the affected Ways and communicate with anyone who has also changed the tags that you would be changing. Maybe even start with an Oregon equivalent of the http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/California/Railroads wiki page. A bunch of the route relations for the Portland area are already linked from http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Portland,_Oregon. Peter
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
