Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 35, Issue 20

[St Niklaas]

Hi taggers, Colins question are there more countries with different speed rules 
on tracks ? Yes all the TGV like tracks in Europe through, France, Germany and 
Netherlands are specially build for TGVs but somewhere there still tracks 
combined, limited speed up to 100 miles / hr. Hendrik   
 ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Advice & clarification of the railway tracks=* tag required.

[Richard Mann]

I've copied the info to a new passenger_lines tag, since it would appear
that some people would prefer to use the tracks tag for a different purpose.

For those of you who don't have experience of train operations, I can
assure you that the number of tracks available for passenger operations
(and in particular, whether services can be readily timetabled to operate
with limited stops due to the absence of slow traffic on some lines) is
pretty useful info.

(Colin - it may be that usage=main covers the situation that I tagged as
traffic=fast, but I think usage=main also covers situations where
long-distance services dominate, but may have to share with freight, like
on much of the ECML. I'll try to elucidate in due course.)

Richard
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Advice & clarification of the railway tracks=* tag required.

[André Pirard]

  
  
On 2012-08-08 18:46,  Dave F. wrote :
The
  discussion has gone off on a tangent (as it always seems to do :)
  ). Back to the original point - Are we agreed that tracks=4 on
  each individual way to indicate the total number of tracks running
  side by side is wrong?
  

It's my opinion indeed.  My example of a rail yard, even if
exaggerated, proves that the other solution is not sensible.

On 2012-08-08 17:41,  Pieren wrote :
The relation would say "these 4 tracks belong to the
  same railway".

This is not possible either when the number of tracks varies.
And relations of relations for that purpose would be overkill,
wouldn't it?
But possible if it's made clear that the number is indicative and
means "on most of the length".
Especially if the reader is hinted at variations, like with "1+".

Making a relation bunching the tracks is a good idea as it probably
exists for other reasons.
And the only way to know number of tracks at one point is just to
count them.

Regarding this, I used JOSM to examine the relation of a motorway.
Each lane was in it indeed, but in a single file (in a single queue,
à la queue leu leu).
I was shown the lane on one side but I found myself unable to spot
the other side.

How can a human have a clear view of a relation (e.g. counting the
tracks or finding where they increase)?

What (where, URL) are the rules saying in which order
non-consecutive elements must be assembled?

Best regards,


  

  André.

  









  

  


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Advice & clarification of the railway tracks=* tag required.

[John Sturdy]

On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 5:46 PM, Dave F.  wrote:

> Are we agreed that tracks=4 on each individual
> way to indicate the total number of tracks running side by side is wrong?

I think it's wrong (I think tracks=n on a way indicates how many
tracks that way represents).

__John

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Advice & clarification of the railway tracks=* tag required.

[Dave F.]

On 08/08/2012 17:28, Paul Johnson wrote:


Yes, but it's still a goofy way to tag things.  Here's an example in 
the US of two railways owned by two different companies operating in 
the same right of way: http://osm.org/go/WIDwpip0E-


Yes, the operator tag is appropriate for that example.

The discussion has gone off on a tangent (as it always seems to do :) ). 
Back to the original point - Are we agreed that tracks=4 on each 
individual way to indicate the total number of tracks running side by 
side is wrong?


Cheers
Dave F.



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Advice & clarification of the railway tracks=* tag required.

[Colin Smale]

While we're at it, what's traffic=fast on a rail line? What other values 
could there be? Weren't we using service=* for this kind of thing?


Colin

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Advice & clarification of the railway tracks=* tag required.

[AJ Ashton]

On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 12:23 PM, Dave F.  wrote:
> On 08/08/2012 16:41, Pieren wrote:
>>
>> The relation would say "these 4 tracks belong to the same railway".
>
> I still don't see the point/benefit of this.

>From a cartographic point of view this could greatly ease the ability
to simplify/generalize the network for smaller scales where it only
makes sense to draw the tracks as a single line. It can be difficult,
or at least computationally expensive, to associate parallel lines
with each other without some kind of helpful clue like a relation.

-- 
AJ Ashton

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Advice & clarification of the railway tracks=* tag required.

[Paul Johnson]

On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Dave F.  wrote:

> On 08/08/2012 16:41, Pieren wrote:
>
>>
>> The relation would say "these 4 tracks belong to the same railway".
>>
>
> I still don't see the point/benefit of this. In the quasi-nationalised UK
> rail system all tracks across the country are owned to the same company
> & different journeys/operators are tagged within a route relation. Do
> other countries have tracks side by side run by different companies?
>

Yes, but it's still a goofy way to tag things.  Here's an example in the US
of two railways owned by two different companies operating in the same
right of way:  http://osm.org/go/WIDwpip0E-
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Advice & clarification of the railway tracks=* tag required.

[Dave F.]

On 08/08/2012 16:41, Pieren wrote:


The relation would say "these 4 tracks belong to the same railway".


I still don't see the point/benefit of this. In the quasi-nationalised 
UK rail system all tracks across the country are owned to the same company
& different journeys/operators are tagged within a route relation. Do 
other countries have tracks side by side run by different companies?


Cheers
Dave F.


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Advice & clarification of the railway tracks=* tag required.

[Pieren]

On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Dave F.  wrote:
> Richard/Pieren
> I'm failing to see what tracks=4 needs to be kept, especially in a relation.
> I don't see the point of making a 'collection' of tracks.
> Especially in relations as they're not meant to be used for
> collections/categories.

The relation would say "these 4 tracks belong to the same railway".
I'm not talking about a tag "tracks=4" here which is not required any
more (counting the members with e.g. the role "track" would be
enough)..
Perhaps tag the relation with "type=railway" (or "railway=rail" ?) and
the ways with "railway=track" instead of "railway=rail" +
"tracks=1"... It's a very similar discussion about roads and lanes...

Pieren

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Advice & clarification of the railway tracks=* tag required.

[Dave F.]

On 08/08/2012 13:14, Pieren wrote:
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Richard Mann 
> wrote:


Maybe I'd better just copy all the info in tracks=* into a new
tag, and let Dave set them all to tracks=1.



Instead of creating a new tag duplicating the information, you could 
also create a relation containing all tracks as members.


Richard/Pieren
I'm failing to see what tracks=4 needs to be kept, especially in a 
relation. I don't see the point of making a 'collection' of tracks.
Especially in relations as they're not meant to be used for 
collections/categories.


Dave F.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Advice & clarification of the railway tracks=* tag required.

[Richard Mann]

It feels more like a collection rather than a geospatial relation to me,
and (pace the conversation about refs on highways), it seems simpler to put
the info directly on the relevant ways, rather than making the ways a
member of a relation where the info is stored.

In general, I think slow-changing infrastructure-type information is better
recorded on the ways. Whereas service-type information is better recorded
in relations.

Richard

On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Pieren  wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Richard Mann <
> richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Maybe I'd better just copy all the info in tracks=* into a new tag, and
>> let Dave set them all to tracks=1.
>>
>>
>>
> Instead of creating a new tag duplicating the information, you could also
> create a relation containing all tracks as members.
>
> Pieren
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Advice & clarification of the railway tracks=* tag required.

[Pieren]

On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Richard Mann <
richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com> wrote:


> Maybe I'd better just copy all the info in tracks=* into a new tag, and
> let Dave set them all to tracks=1.
>
>
>
Instead of creating a new tag duplicating the information, you could also
create a relation containing all tracks as members.

Pieren
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Advice & clarification of the railway tracks=* tag required.

[Richard Mann]

I think we're rapidly heading to mapping each track separately. They can
all be labelled as tracks=1 (though the wiki doesn't actually tell you to
do that), but that would be completely pointless. It might have some value
in the interim period, but the tag isn't used consistently enough to make
that meaningful: better just to get on with drawing parallel tracks.

The useful information is the number of passenger running lines (with the
number of goods running lines as supplementary information). The number of
sidings is useful/interesting for different (but separate) purposes. Most
of the lines in that first example should be tagged service=siding or
service=yard.

Maybe I'd better just copy all the info in tracks=* into a new tag, and let
Dave set them all to tracks=1.

Richard

On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 2:27 AM, André Pirard  wrote:

> **
> Look at this 
> exampleand
>  ask yourself how to tag track=* on each way according to that user's
> concept ;-)
>
> I have found interesting to map two tracks (vs one line) to visually
> stress that a single track line splits in two on some distance (where
> trains cross like when the English drivers hand those anti-crash control
> sticks over).  My question is: how do I include the second track in the
> relations containing the single line?  Same question when the line is two
> tracks fully, of course.
>
> Now if you look at this... 
> isn't it tempting to map each rail? :-)  One even sees where their
> straight line segments meet.
>
> But, last question, what's the use of mapping such "micro" details if the
> renderers do not show them.
> I have mapped cellphone aerials (man_made=tower,
> tower:type=communication), several on water towers like 
> this
> .
> The water tower or other support shows, but never the aerial.
>
> Best regards,
>
>   André.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging