Re: [Talk-transit] Old railways
>Btw, do you know of a way to copy data from one layer in JOSM to
another, while keeping it at the exact same position?
Create a new layer down load a tiny area with nothing in it works fine.
Select what you want to copy and copy to new layer.
Cheerio John
On Sun, May 12, 2019, 1:46 PM Tijmen Stam, wrote:
> On 12-05-19 17:48, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
> > On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 07:54, Tijmen Stam wrote:
> >> In my environment, some people are adding old ("razed" railways to
> >> openstreetmak, of which no trace is visible in the field.
> >> It concerns both old railways which have been gone since 1933, e.g.
> >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/592259029 (Note that this piece still
> >> is somewhat visible, as it is now a road and partially a cycle path).
> >
> > Hi Tijmen,
> >
> > The "canonical" answer is that things that no longer exist in real
> > life and there is no trace of them do not belong in OpenStreetMap.
> >
> > How strict you want to interpret this probably depends more on local
> > community consensus than on talk-transit guidance.
> >
> > Tagging of removed railways that are now paths _in the same alignment_
> > seems relatively uncontroversial. https://osm.org/way/583243933 is an
> > example local to me.
>
> Yeah, I hold that same thing too. Basically path and track I still
> double-tag as railway=abandoned, but when it becomes a proper highway, I
> generally don't.
> I do tag razed when most of a longer railway is still (very) visible in
> the field, but short sections are no longer, as e.g. they have become a
> highway through/around a village. E.g.
> or
> (that latter should've
> been razed, not abandoned)
>
> > Your example of way 592259029 seems to me a bit
> > ambitious in that it traces alignment where it is no longer evident,
> > such as over houses, and https://osm.org/way/592259043 is a bridge
> > that no longer exists... I would not include this in OSM.
>
> >> Another example is a tram line in Amsterdam that has been gone for a
> >> year now , the area has
> >> been completely redeveloped, no trace of the old tram tracks remains.
> >
> > IMO this should not be in OSM.
>
> Then we think alike.
>
> >> I only recently found out about openrailwaymap, but I can't find much
> >> information about it. It seems it gets its data from the OSM database.
> >>
> >> Is there a way to store "razed" railways somewhere else, so they will
> >> show up on openrailwaymap but not on OSM (they are rendered on some
> >> renderers, e.g. OSMAND)
> >
> > There does exist
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Historical_Map which is a
> > separate database intended for things that used to exist but don't
> > anymore.
> >
> > Although this would be technically and legally possible, I doubt that
> > OpenRailwayMap currently integrates data from OHM.
>
> Thank you so much!
>
> To not "lose" the hard work of others, I have copied (part of) the
> abandoned/razed railways from OSM to OHM, added it with data from
> Wikipedia. Now I have to remove the data from OSM, but that's quite some
> work so I will do that later.
>
> <
> http://www.openhistoricalmap.org/?edit_help=1#map=16/52.7820/4.8315=H
> >
>
> Thanks for that!
>
> Btw, do you know of a way to copy data from one layer in JOSM to
> another, while keeping it at the exact same position?
>
> ___
> Talk-transit mailing list
> Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
>
___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Old railways
On 5/12/2019 1:45 PM, Tijmen Stam wrote: Btw, do you know of a way to copy data from one layer in JOSM to another, while keeping it at the exact same position? Edit / Paste at Source Position (CTRL+ALT+V). I still wish it was easier to migrate objects to Open Historical Map. While I also don't think that Razed railways without a trace no longer belong in OSM, there's a bit of tradition that allowed them here. Since they don't render on the default OSM site, I leave the old tracks for now. ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme
I like to keep things simple, the best way to accomplish that, is by having a single object for each stop that holds all the details for its "lifetime". That's why I don't like the idea of 'upgrading from a node to a way/area or a relation. So a node next to the highway per stop. I started adding public_transport=platform/bus=yes to these nodes, but to be honest, I am not sure why. anymore What matters to get them rendered is to add highway=bus_stop to them. And that's not going to change anytime soon. Think of these nodes as logical objects that represent the stops. The nice thing about them is that they have coordinates directly, no need to recalculate center points over and over and over and over again. Of course, if there are physical platforms, it's easy to map them as separate objects, tagged with highway=platform or railway=platform on a way or an area. No need to repeat all the details on them though. About the stop_area relations, they're not needed everywhere, but they could be used to show what belongs together. Of course, that would mean all the objects related to the stop at one side of the street, not both sides. public_transport=stop_position, I only use them at the beginning and the end of the itineraries. We could also simply split the way on a node that doesn't have tags. Polyglot On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 8:55 PM Tijmen Stam wrote: > On 07-05-19 15:29, Dave F via Talk-transit wrote: > > On 06/05/2019 19:53, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > >> On 2019-05-03 12:09, Dave F via Talk-transit wrote: > >>> > >>> This reinforces my point about misappropriation of tags. A platform is > >>> a physical construction higher than the surrounding ground to allow > >>> easier boarding. > >> > >> It's a logical platform whether it physically exists or not. > > > > A 'logical platform'? > > > > From OSM's main welcome page: > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/welcome > > "OpenStreetMap is a place for mapping things that are both /real and > > current/" > > > > "What it /doesn't/ include is... hypothetical features," > > a "public_transport=platform" is not defined as being "platform" (raised > good concrete flooring) but as "the place where people wait to board a > bus/tram/train". Whatever form that is. > > It is not uncommon for key/values to be misnomers in OSM. Clearest > example is private-access ways being tagged as highway=* (plus > access=no) which is a misnomer in British English (which we use), as > highways are public-access roads by legal definition. (see > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway#Terminology) > > >> It's pretty well established that using a platform node for a mere > >> pole is valid. > > > > But you're mapping them as areas. > > As bus stop tags are by far the more established, why not use that to > > map a."mere pole". > > This is circular reasoning. We can't use the new thing because the old > thing is much more usual. > Besides, the new thing (public_transport=platform in PTv2) has been > voted on in 2011, with overwhelming majority (83 to 6) > > > From the bus stop wiki page: > > "A bus stop is a place where passengers can board or alight from a bus." > > Which is what you're claiming platform areas are. As I said it's pure > > duplication. > > No, changing of tagging, not replication. > There is no need to map with highway=bus_stop anymore (save for > rendering on osm_carto) > > >> People wait there to be picked up, regardless of the actual surface > >> type (which can change over time anyway). > > > > Unsure why you believe surface is relevant, but as I said, your examples > > of platforms are imaginary, inaccurate & arbitrary. > > He says the surface is irrelevant (regardless). > I find it a losing argument by saying Stephen's examples are "imaginary, > inaccurate and arbritary"?, even when he hardly gives an example in the > post you quote. > > >>> A platform: > >>> https://s0.geograph.org.uk/geophotos/04/76/30/4763016_2416f5ee.jpg > >>> > >>> Not a platform: > >>> > https://i.pinimg.com/originals/38/90/a0/3890a0f451e1a6900d174b29125b3c80.jpg > > That is a "place where people wait to board" (or in this instance, where > people just alighted) > > >>> If (& I believe it's a big if), a separate tag is required to as you & > >>> Markus suggest, one with a unique, non-confusing value should be used. > >>> > >>> Many public_transport=platform are tagged on the same node as > >>> highway=bus_stop. They have no raised construction Therefore they're > >>> redundant - routing can use the bus stop tag for the "stop node beside > >>> the > >>> road" as Markus described it.: > >>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/469760546#map=19/51.51026/-0.18630 > > The reason double tagging exists, is that public_transport=platform > isn't rendered yet. > > >> I'd be fine with saying that highway=bus_stop implies > >> public_transport=platform, except that some mappers put bus stops on > >> the way instead of beside the way and argue with anyone who tries to > >> fix them, so in those
Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme
On 09-05-19 23:03, Markus wrote: On Tue, 7 May 2019 at 21:15, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: 7c. From what I'm understand, this bus stop node does not have to be connected to a pedestrian highway either, with routers presumably jumping from the nearest highway? Yes, this is what OsmAnd does. 8. A stop_location (to use ptv2 terminology) on the way that vehicles travel on could help with things like calculating and showing the likely route the bus will take, but this can also be calculated without the stop_location node by projection of other stop objects onto the way It can be calculated. So why complicating mapping and maintaining public transportation routes needlessly? :) Because sometimes it can't (think of a fence or ditch between ways that is not mapped - besides, for renderers it is relatively hard to calculate whether there is something between a node and a way and whether that constitutes a barrier. Please take note that the stop_position is _optional_ in PTv2! It doesn't need to be mapped! 9. There are some cases that do not cleanly fit into hw=bus_stop "PTv1" tagging, for example a sign-only stop served by both buses and trams, or a waiting platform served by both buses and trams 9a. Because we must retain hw=bus_stop per #3 and #5, any accommodation of these cases must either be initially of tags, or guidance on how to place highway=bus_stop tags If we go for the "improved PTv1" solution, my suggestion [1] was to place both highway=bus_stop and railway=tram_stop beside the road. Thus, highway=bus_stop and railway=tram_stop can and should be combined on one node. The PTv2 solution has this all and unifies tram and buses, while not being more complicated than bidirectional PTv1, except it has some optional features that make things unambiguous in difficult cases... 10. Meaning of public_transit=platform tag is dependent on context, it unifies/duplicates some existing tags, arguably it sometimes describes imaginary things, and it is disliked by many editors As i understand it [2], public_transit=platform does not describe imaginary things. On a node, it means the waiting area of a stop (i.e., it is equivalent to highway=bus_stop or railway=tram_stop), and on a way or area, it means a real platform that acts as a stop (i.e., it is a combination of highway=bus_stop/railway=tram_stop and highway=platform/railway=platform). However, in my opinion it would have been better to create a tag like public_transport=stop that -- as with all other tags -- always (regardless of whether used on a node, way or area) means the same thing (waiting area of a stop) and that could be used in combination with highway=platform/railway=platform if there is a platform. I think that is being pedantic. In The Netherlands, most "platform" bus stops can not be discerned from a normal sidewalk if not for a slightly raised kerb or block markings that have a second meaning of parking (within a certain distance of that marking). To check whether someone is in the dirt or on pavement, one could always add a surface tag to the platform. 12. Many of the currently mapped tram systems have a railway=tram_stop + public_transport=stop_position node on the rail, so we should probably not change this scheme either without good reason I think that a simpler mapping and maintaining of the routes as well as a better routing are good reasons enough. :) As well as unification of tram and bus mapping (and train for the same matter) 13. There is currently no clear way for tagging stops that also have physical platforms, except for PTv2 13a. This exists as physical feature in real world and should be supported, in a manner compatible with platform-less stops 13b. Should we add bus_stop/tram_stop on one of the nodes of the platform way [4]? Next to the platform? As pointed out by Markus, we can't do what might be the most intuitive method of the platform way/area sharing bus_stop tag because the platform is also a highway= tag. In my opinion, if we decide to stick with PTv1 tags, the best way would be to add a highway=bus_stop or railway=tram_stop in the middle of the highway/railway=platform way or area. I don't understand what you mean here, with add a highway=bus_stop in the middle of what? Of the highway way where the bus drives, or in the middle of the highway=platform way? Why would we need this double-tagging of a way:highway=platform + node:highway=bus_stop? Wouldn't it be simpler to have one tag that has the semantic meaning of "place where one waits to board/alights" that has the same meaning whether it is one spot, a linear element or an area, whether it is for a bus, tram or train? That would be public_transport=platform! IIVQ ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme
On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 18:06, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: > > A requirement would be having one direction per relation, otherwise > vehicles going in opposite directions might still be mapped to an > incorrect stop_position if 2+ trip directions pass through a station. Yes, this was the idea: PTv1 tags, but separate route relations per direction and route variant, and bus and tram stops placed at the waiting area. Regards Markus ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Old railways
On 12-05-19 17:48, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 07:54, Tijmen Stam wrote:
In my environment, some people are adding old ("razed" railways to
openstreetmak, of which no trace is visible in the field.
It concerns both old railways which have been gone since 1933, e.g.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/592259029 (Note that this piece still
is somewhat visible, as it is now a road and partially a cycle path).
Hi Tijmen,
The "canonical" answer is that things that no longer exist in real
life and there is no trace of them do not belong in OpenStreetMap.
How strict you want to interpret this probably depends more on local
community consensus than on talk-transit guidance.
Tagging of removed railways that are now paths _in the same alignment_
seems relatively uncontroversial. https://osm.org/way/583243933 is an
example local to me.
Yeah, I hold that same thing too. Basically path and track I still
double-tag as railway=abandoned, but when it becomes a proper highway, I
generally don't.
I do tag razed when most of a longer railway is still (very) visible in
the field, but short sections are no longer, as e.g. they have become a
highway through/around a village. E.g.
or
(that latter should've
been razed, not abandoned)
Your example of way 592259029 seems to me a bit
ambitious in that it traces alignment where it is no longer evident,
such as over houses, and https://osm.org/way/592259043 is a bridge
that no longer exists... I would not include this in OSM.
Another example is a tram line in Amsterdam that has been gone for a
year now , the area has
been completely redeveloped, no trace of the old tram tracks remains.
IMO this should not be in OSM.
Then we think alike.
I only recently found out about openrailwaymap, but I can't find much
information about it. It seems it gets its data from the OSM database.
Is there a way to store "razed" railways somewhere else, so they will
show up on openrailwaymap but not on OSM (they are rendered on some
renderers, e.g. OSMAND)
There does exist
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Historical_Map which is a
separate database intended for things that used to exist but don't
anymore.
Although this would be technically and legally possible, I doubt that
OpenRailwayMap currently integrates data from OHM.
Thank you so much!
To not "lose" the hard work of others, I have copied (part of) the
abandoned/razed railways from OSM to OHM, added it with data from
Wikipedia. Now I have to remove the data from OSM, but that's quite some
work so I will do that later.
Thanks for that!
Btw, do you know of a way to copy data from one layer in JOSM to
another, while keeping it at the exact same position?
___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme
On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 09:57, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: > I can imagine calculating correct stop position being challenging in > case of multi-lane bus stations like > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/37096072 (looks like > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Islington_TTC_Bus_Barns.jpg in > reality) or https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/617387384. Follow-up: I've just re-read your other message where you mentioned that with correct relation tagging, you would take a projection of platform/bus_stop onto the nearest vehicle way which is in the route relation. In my experience the vehicle ways are included in route relations more often than the stop/platform details, so it seems fair to expect that if platform is mapped in detail, the routes using that platform will have ways also included in the route relations. Of course route relations are a bit prone to breaking, but so is detailed station mapping. A requirement would be having one direction per relation, otherwise vehicles going in opposite directions might still be mapped to an incorrect stop_position if 2+ trip directions pass through a station. The possible edge cases I'm coming up with (trips where a vehicle serves the same station twice _in one trip_ but on different platforms) seem like they'd be incredibly rare so I am alright ignoring them. So I would agree that a strong case can be made for stop_position not being necessary, provided we have a requirement that platform/bus_stop/equivalent is not on the vehicle way, and that we have only one trip direction in a route relation. --Jarek ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Old railways
On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 07:54, Tijmen Stam wrote:
> In my environment, some people are adding old ("razed" railways to
> openstreetmak, of which no trace is visible in the field.
> It concerns both old railways which have been gone since 1933, e.g.
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/592259029 (Note that this piece still
> is somewhat visible, as it is now a road and partially a cycle path).
Hi Tijmen,
The "canonical" answer is that things that no longer exist in real
life and there is no trace of them do not belong in OpenStreetMap.
How strict you want to interpret this probably depends more on local
community consensus than on talk-transit guidance.
Tagging of removed railways that are now paths _in the same alignment_
seems relatively uncontroversial. https://osm.org/way/583243933 is an
example local to me. Your example of way 592259029 seems to me a bit
ambitious in that it traces alignment where it is no longer evident,
such as over houses, and https://osm.org/way/592259043 is a bridge
that no longer exists... I would not include this in OSM.
> Another example is a tram line in Amsterdam that has been gone for a
> year now , the area has
> been completely redeveloped, no trace of the old tram tracks remains.
IMO this should not be in OSM.
> I only recently found out about openrailwaymap, but I can't find much
> information about it. It seems it gets its data from the OSM database.
>
> Is there a way to store "razed" railways somewhere else, so they will
> show up on openrailwaymap but not on OSM (they are rendered on some
> renderers, e.g. OSMAND)
There does exist
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Historical_Map which is a
separate database intended for things that used to exist but don't
anymore.
Although this would be technically and legally possible, I doubt that
OpenRailwayMap currently integrates data from OHM.
IMHO if they want to show historic railways they should also include
OHM data, to support not having undesirable data in OSM. But I realize
it'd be quite a lot of technical work.
> Funny anecdote: OSMAND showing abandoned railways has on one occasion
> led me to a detour because I thought I saw a footpath cross a canal
> where a razed railway has a very similar rendering.
Arguably this is a bug in OsmAnd - things that are explicitly tagged
as no longer existing should probably not be rendered by a
general-purpose renderer.
However this also depends on the tagging being correct - for instance
OSM-carto renders railway=disused (there is a clear sign of a railway
but it is no longer used) but not railway=razed (no railway exists) or
railway=abandoned (tagging seems inconsistent [1] so I guess they err
on side of not showing disused things).
--Jarek
[1] P.S. I just realized 3 months ago I tagged railway=abandoned on
stretches where there is no trace of track but its past presence can
be derived from track remaining on either end of the cleared stretch.
I currently find my past decision questionable, but I imagine there
was tagging guidance somewhere that made me choose this over
railway=razed.
___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme
On Thu, 9 May 2019 at 17:04, Markus wrote: > Could you please give some examples where the stop position can't be > calculated from the waiting area? I'd also like to know for which use > cases the stop positions are necessary. I can imagine calculating correct stop position being challenging in case of multi-lane bus stations like https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/37096072 (looks like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Islington_TTC_Bus_Barns.jpg in reality) or https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/617387384. In case of Islington the individual stops/platforms are currently not mapped, but if they were added, calculating the correct stopping position will also require the router knowing if traffic in the region is left hand or right hand - that is, on which side the buses have doors, and thus in which lane they will be. Then there is the weird case of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_station#Harvard_Bus_Tunnel where buses run on the off-side, and some buses have doors on the off-sides for historical infrastructure reasons. Arguably the exact stopping position doesn't matter very much - does it matter if you show the bus route on the next lane, 3 m over? But it does complicate absolute correctness. --Jarek ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
[Talk-transit] Old railways
Hello,
In my environment, some people are adding old ("razed" railways to
openstreetmak, of which no trace is visible in the field.
It concerns both old railways which have been gone since 1933, e.g.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/592259029 (Note that this piece still
is somewhat visible, as it is now a road and partially a cycle path).
Another example is a tram line in Amsterdam that has been gone for a
year now , the area has
been completely redeveloped, no trace of the old tram tracks remains.
Although I am a great fan of abandoned railways, IMHO such "razed"
railways or other objects of which no trace remains, don't belong on OSM
(although there is much discussion, see
).
I only recently found out about openrailwaymap, but I can't find much
information about it. It seems it gets its data from the OSM database.
Is there a way to store "razed" railways somewhere else, so they will
show up on openrailwaymap but not on OSM (they are rendered on some
renderers, e.g. OSMAND)
Funny anecdote: OSMAND showing abandoned railways has on one occasion
led me to a detour because I thought I saw a footpath cross a canal
where a razed railway has a very similar rendering.
Tijmen / IIVQ
___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme
For reasons I've already stated I disagree with everything in this post, but this epitomises why the public transport schema concept was a complete cock-up: I think it is suitable to go the way of unifying it as much as possible under the p_t-umbrella. * It wasn't to enable routers to design software * It wasn't to add anything new to the database * It wasn't to make it mapping easier. * It wasn't to simplify tagging (the PT equivalent of highway=bus_stop requires 100% more tags!) It was purely to satiate the compulsive desire to compartmentalize, group obsessively into boxes. The jumbled up mess of PT's wiki pages show It failed to simplify matters; to the extent even those who were on board at the beginning are confused. Think of all that wasted time which could have been spent on productively adding quality to the OSM database. DaveF ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
