Re: [talk-au] Mapping planned light rail routes

[stevea]

To be clear, "infrastructure" tagging as I described it doesn't necessarily 
come first, it (only) would if an existing rail line needs to be entered into 
OSM, then might be repurposed as a light_rail line.  If there is no rail to be 
repurposed, and it is brand-new-from-scratch passenger rail, skip that first 
part and wrangle when it is best to first enter "proposed," then "construction" 
and finally (as ribbons are cut), turning those infrastructure into passenger 
service lines.  For trains and light_rail/tram these are slightly different:  
for trains, you have BOTH a route=railway relation and a route=train relation, 
for light_rail, you can do it with a single relation that represents both the 
physical / infrastructure elements of the rail AND the passenger-oriented 
members of the single route=light_rail relation (like platforms and stop_area 
members).
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Mapping planned light rail routes

[stevea]

On Sep 15, 2022, at 4:38 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:
> Work is due to start "soon" on the next extension of the GC Light Rail route.
> 
> Details have been published about where it will be going, & where the 
> stations will be located, site offices are now appearing & physical work is 
> supposed to start later this year.
> 
> At what stage do we map this, & what as - proposed or construction?

Having a lot of experience with this in OSM (you can see how we do it in 
California here [1] and especially here [2]), the "rules of thumb" that have 
emerged go a lot like this:

• infrastructure tagging (ways tagged railway=rail, or railway=light_rail / 
railway=tram if those are "what is") comes first, then these elements aggregate 
into a route=railway relation (in the USA, these are often called 
"subdivisions," though these route members could be pieces of an industrial 
spur, a logical section of rail tagged usage=branch, a bunch of rail=disused or 
rail=abandoned if you map those...),

• "proposed" tagging (see state=proposed, maybe you like what that displays in 
OpenRailwayMap) comes next, but ONLY when the line / route / service is REAL in 
some sense, like it has gone through final design AND is mostly- or 
fully-funded,

• "construction" tagging really only should start as shovels-are-in-ground and 
equipment is building things,

• and when construction finishes, you can turn the elements of route=railway 
plus stations into (first) public_transport:version=1 route relations, then 
upgrade those with platforms, stop_area and such to version 2 routes (should be 
route=train, route=light_rail, route=tram...again depending on "what is").

The ticklish parts come when you might actually put a "proposed" route in, 
especially if it is widely wanted, the maps of the proposed route are drawn, 
but there is no funding.  Many want to add those to OSM, but many also believe 
they shouldn't be entered until they are "substantially or mostly- / 
fully-funded."

For rail projects, these timelines are often many years, and so the process 
dovetails with some give-and-take among the local / regional OSM community 
about "where about are we?" (in the sense of consensus) about which of these 
stages of "gleam in transport policy department's eye..." to "buy your ticket, 
take a ride" the project actually "is" in some real-world sense.

You folks seem to have figured out a lot about this already "down there," so 
I'm sort of waving from West Coast stateside and saying "we've got some rail 
construction going on here" (2028 Olympics in Los Angeles, California 
High-Speed Rail [3]...), come take a look at how we do it."

You don't want to be "too future-oriented" or you'll ruffle feathers, as you're 
more-or-less saying something exists (in the real world) by putting it in the 
map, when it doesn't (quite) yet.  So be careful with that.  Otherwise, have 
fun / map happy!

Steve

[1] https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/California/Railroads
[2] https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/California/Railroads/Passenger
[3] 
https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/California/Railroads/Passenger#California_High_Speed_Rail_(passenger=regional)_trains_(CAHSR),_under_construction
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] Mapping planned light rail routes

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Work is due to start "soon" on the next extension of the GC Light Rail
route.

Details have been published about where it will be going, & where the
stations will be located, site offices are now appearing & physical work is
supposed to start later this year.

At what stage do we map this, & what as - proposed or construction?

Thanks

Graeme
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [OSM-talk] Translation of wiki templates

[Seth Deegan]

George, you may want to subscribe to this Github issue
 which once
implemented will make translating templates on the Wiki much easier.

lectrician1 


El mié, 7 sept 2022 a la(s) 14:31, Georges Dutreix via talk (
talk@openstreetmap.org) escribió:

> Hello,
>
> Tell me if I am not on the correct list !
>
> I am unable to find information on the good practices to translate wiki
> pages with templates. I tried to do that on a page
> (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:FR:Building_typology#Autres),
>
> but translating a paragraph resulted in a translation of the english
> original template.
>
> I am looking for a "basic" information concerning mistakes to be
> avoided, and the best way to do the translation of a template :-)
>
> Thanks for any link.
>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Coastline update process seems to be broken - major costline change near the Gulf of Ob

[Jochen Topf]

On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 01:05:51AM +0200, Marc_marc wrote:
> I have learn about this area and it seem that the Gulf of Ob is an area
> affected by tiles.
> so the coastline should follow the Gulf as before and not stop somewhere
> inside the Gulf it-self
> 
> I have reverted the coastline change in
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/126200089

Thanks. I have manually "unfrozen" the processing now. We'll probably
have some other bad edits that make it through this way, but at least
the big one is avoided.

Jochen
-- 
Jochen Topf  joc...@remote.org  https://www.jochentopf.com/  +49-351-31778688

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Coastline update process seems to be broken - costline change near Bahía de Bluefields, Nicaragua

[Marc_marc]

Hello,

Le 15.09.22 à 01:05, Marc_marc a écrit :

I hope this allow the export to resume this night.


unfortunately not
I guess the blocking factor now is the change around
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1087702973
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1lTm
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/125145822

not having any knowledge of this place, i wrote to
the previous contributor. however, i have the impression
that this lagoon is largely connected to the sea and should
therefore be influenced by the tides. and that the part of
the change concerning natural=coastline is therefore wrong

Regards,
Marc



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [talk-au] Adopting AU prefix in route network

[Dian Ågesson]

Hello list,

Thank you all for the feedback.

I have now integrated the new route number scheme into the tagging 
guidelines page based on the positive feedback.


The old tagging scheme will continue to be documented to assist with the 
transition.


Regards,

Dian

On 2022-09-06 01:05, Dian Ågesson wrote:


Hey Mark,

I asked on Discord and both the ref on ways and on relations are used 
by different data consumers. While newer consumers use the relation, 
many older ones will use the way.


I'd be in favour of keeping the old_ref tags where the value is known. 
In Melbourne, at least, there are a lot of old road signs that will be 
hanging around long after the conversion happens in the area.


Dian

On 2022-09-05 19:53, Mark Pulley wrote:

Just a question about when (if) we do this. In the past I've placed the 
network/ref tags on both the relation and on the individual ways. Do we 
need the route number details on the ways as well, or can these be 
deleted from the ways?


Also, do we still need the old_ref tags (e.g. old route numbers prior 
to conversion to alphanumeric routes)?


If we go ahead with this change, I've got some time in the next few 
weeks, so am willing to volunteer to work on this.


Mark P.

On 26 Aug 2022, at 8:00 pm, Dian Ågesson  wrote:

Hello all,

Following on from a previous discussion on the mailing list [1], I've 
put together guidelines that would allow us to implement AU: prefixes 
in our route network tags.


The content is here: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Diacritic/Proposed_Australian_Routes


I am looking for affirmation that this change is a good idea and should 
be implemented in Australia.


Dian ___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Links:
--
[1] 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2022-August/016399.html___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au