Re: [Tagging] Advice clarification of the railway tracks=* tag required.
Dave has been quite rude, and completely dismissive of the value of anything other than his interpretation of what the wiki states. Internet etiquette is that you do not respond to rudeness, so I haven't. Counting parallel lines is a pain, and trying to put the info into relations is unnecessarily complicated. So I favour a total_tracks on ways approach. Since Peter (ITO) seems moderately relaxed about the tracks info being deleted where there are multiple tracks (and he's the only known user), I'll probably remove the tags. Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Advice clarification of the railway tracks=* tag required.
On 16/08/2012 14:46, Richard Mann wrote: Dave has been quite rude, I believe you've confused the meanings of the words rude critical. I initially asked a civil, simple question to which you've continuously evaded giving a direct response. Any curtness on my part is due to your repeated reluctance to go along with the majority view. and completely dismissive of the value of anything other than his interpretation of what the wiki states. Come again? The wiki interpretation (which I didn't write) has been agreed by many, many users. (I would say everyone except you). To double check I came here for clarification - All who replied agree with the wiki. It's disappointing you thought it acceptable to hi-jack a tag just to suit your requirements. Since Peter (ITO) seems moderately relaxed about the tracks info being deleted where there are multiple tracks (and he's the only known user), I'll probably remove the tags. No Richard, removing them is as bad as keeping them with your erroneous values. You need to return them to their original state. Please make sure it's only your edits you amend. Dave F. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Advice clarification of the railway tracks=* tag required.
Here's how I'd address the concerns in this thread: tracks=*: number of tracks represented by the way having the tag, as per wiki total_tracks=*: number of tracks in the right-of-way of the rail line, regardless of how many parallel ways exist. This sounds more like a tag appropriate for a rail route relation, except this value can be different for different segments of the line, so its use on ways is appropriate. Similar tags may exist to count how many tracks are used for a particular type of service (passenger / freight, passing / local, etc) on per-way and total basis. Where two distinct rail lines run adjacent for some distance, the total_tracks tag can treat it as two groups of tracks or a single group of tracks, at mapper's discretion — but I would advocate for the two groups treatment unless all the tracks actually are used as a single many-track rail line (local knowledge required). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Advice clarification of the railway tracks=* tag required.
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 12:31 PM, David ``Smith'' vidthe...@gmail.com wrote: tracks=*: number of tracks represented by the way having the tag, as per wiki total_tracks=*: number of tracks in the right-of-way of the rail line, regardless of how many parallel ways exist. This sounds more like a tag appropriate for a rail route relation, except this value can be different for different segments of the line, so its use on ways is appropriate. I'm even not sure we need a tag counting the amount of tracks if we create a relation (it needs some computation). But I'm afraid that RM is tagging for the renderer ITO map reailway tracks... That's why I'm inviting Peter to the discussion. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Advice clarification of the railway tracks=* tag required.
On Aug 14, 2012 6:43 AM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 12:31 PM, David ``Smith'' vidthe...@gmail.com wrote: tracks=*: number of tracks represented by the way having the tag, as per wiki total_tracks=*: number of tracks in the right-of-way of the rail line, regardless of how many parallel ways exist. This sounds more like a tag appropriate for a rail route relation, except this value can be different for different segments of the line, so its use on ways is appropriate. I'm even not sure we need a tag counting the amount of tracks if we create a relation (it needs some computation). But I'm afraid that RM is tagging for the renderer ITO map reailway tracks... Tagging for a class of renderers perhaps. Considering the use case of drawing a railway map colored by how many parallel tracks, it would be easier to just extract that information from a simple tag than to perform some nontrivial geometric analysis which might still yield a different result from the obvious-to-a-human answer in some places. Personally, I think this use case is common enough to expect multiple such maps to be created by different people, who would each have to implement that geometric analysis separately, unless the information is present in a simple tag. A little bit of redundancy is fine if it makes the data significantly easier to use, IMO. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Advice clarification of the railway tracks=* tag required.
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 1:03 PM, David ``Smith'' vidthe...@gmail.com wrote: A little bit of redundancy is fine if it makes the data significantly easier to use, IMO. Excepted that ITO map is interpreting the tag as it is documented. If you zoom at the maximum [1], you will see that the renderer is drawing 4 parallel lines in colour red which means 4 times 4,5 or 6 tracks. It is not redundancy, it's simply wrong. How can you distinguish when tracks is used as it is documented or when it's used as RM interprets it ? Pieren [1] http://www.itoworld.com/map/14#lat=52.796807131849235lon=-2.0713990318144995zoom=18 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Advice clarification of the railway tracks=* tag required.
On 14/08/2012 11:13, David Fisher wrote: Problem : if you check the data, you see that RM added the new tag but did not revert his wrong interpretation of the old tracks. Well, I'd see that as a side-issue, rather than a problem to be honest. It was the only reason I initially contacted him. My 'sniping' is because RM repeatedly attempts to side-step the fact he got things wrong has left inaccurate data. With almost four years experience he shouldn't need 'mediation' on such a simple procedure. Dave F. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Advice clarification of the railway tracks=* tag required.
On 14/08/2012 10:39, David Fisher wrote: -- as RM also correctly points out, knowledge of the total number of running tracks on a stretch of railway is useful for operational reasons, as shown in the ITO map.. Actually the ITO map doesn't represent total numbers. It's representing the wiki use of the tracks= tag. Dave F. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Advice clarification of the railway tracks=* tag required.
On Aug 14, 2012 7:48 AM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 1:03 PM, David ``Smith'' vidthe...@gmail.com wrote: A little bit of redundancy is fine if it makes the data significantly easier to use, IMO. Excepted that ITO map is interpreting the tag as it is documented. If you zoom at the maximum [1], you will see that the renderer is drawing 4 parallel lines in colour red which means 4 times 4,5 or 6 tracks. It is not redundancy, it's simply wrong. How can you distinguish when tracks is used as it is documented or when it's used as RM interprets it ? Pieren That's why I suggest using tracks=* as the wiki describes, and putting the total number of tracks in a new tag like total_tracks=*. Then people can use ITO on the new tag, or otherwise render maps colored by total number of tracks, without having to implement extra analysis of the data. Presumably such maps are presented at such a scale as to make it impossible to see how many separate ways are drawn along a given railway line. My reference to redundancy was about having the total number of tracks explicitly tagged, in _addition_ to the summation of _correct_ tracks=* tags on however many ways are drawn. For example, if one way represents four tracks, it should be tagged tracks=4 + total_tracks=4, meaning this way represents all 4 of 4 tracks present in the right-of-way. If those four tracks are drawn as individual ways, each way should be tagged tracks=1 + total_tracks=4, meaning this way represents just 1 of 4 tracks present in the right-of-way. Having a separate tag for this summary information should solve the original problem which motivated misusing tracks=* in the first place, without breaking things. The only downside is a bit of redundancy, for which I've already provided a justification. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Advice clarification of the railway tracks=* tag required.
I'm forwarding here the reply from Peter Miller, ITO World: Personally I find the suggestion of total_tracks reasonably appealing initially, however it would have to be repeated across all the tracks which seems ugly and still doesn't say with confidence which tracks are connected. The relation approach is clearer and makes it absolutely clear which tracks are being grouped but the relation may not however be the same one as the route relation which makes it difficult. An automated approach would involve merging all close tracks and figuring it out. Not trivial but quite computable in my view. The result could then be converted into relations and a bot process could put it all back into osm, however some people don't like bots!. No obvious answers unfortunately. Personally I thing relations and some bot assistance in due course would be best. A final thought is the dual carriageways and their interchanges share some of these issues. Peter ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Advice clarification of the railway tracks=* tag required.
Well, ok, I probably didn't state that very clearly. My point was that the ITO map is an example of the usefulness of counting the total number of tracks, regardless of how the counting is actually achieved. Also, my point about 'sniping' and 'mediation' was that the issue of an OSM member not behaving in a manner another thinks fit is a separate issue from that of how to represent multiple railway tracks as part of a single route. But I accept that his behaviour was both your original reason for contacting him and the reason for starting this thread, so fair enough. On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 1:09 PM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: On 14/08/2012 10:39, David Fisher wrote: -- as RM also correctly points out, knowledge of the total number of running tracks on a stretch of railway is useful for operational reasons, as shown in the ITO map.. Actually the ITO map doesn't represent total numbers. It's representing the wiki use of the tracks= tag. Dave F. __**_ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/tagginghttp://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.
On Tue, 14 Aug 2012, Pieren wrote: Personally I find the suggestion of total_tracks reasonably appealing initially, however it would have to be repeated across all the tracks which seems ugly and still doesn't say with confidence which tracks are connected. The relation approach is clearer and makes it absolutely clear which tracks are being grouped but the relation may not however be the same one as the route relation which makes it difficult. An automated approach would involve merging all close tracks and figuring it out. Not trivial but quite computable in my view. The result could then be converted into relations and a bot process could put it all back into osm, however some people don't like bots!. The biggest problem with fully automatic approach is probably pair of tracks distancing due to terrain avoidance. But I doubt that the total_tracks=* taggers could come up very consistent values either, e.g., in the case the tracks go on different slopes of a narrow valley etc. so I would not be too worried if our machine friend cannot do it so that everyone would be pleased :-). ...I actually suspect people want more an answer to this question: how many tracks are hidden by the rendering that draws only a single track while zoomed far-away, which then cannot be solved on the data level because the the correct answer varies depending on distancing that is perceivable (it would be trivial to answer that at the render time though). -- i. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Advice clarification of the railway tracks=* tag required.
On Aug 14, 2012 8:47 AM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: I'm forwarding here the reply from Peter Miller, ITO World: An automated approach would involve merging all close tracks and figuring it out. Not trivial but quite computable in my view. Computable, yes, but writing the code is no task for beginners. Unless someone writes a standard utility to preprocess an OSM file to add total_tracks=*, this is not a feature one can just drop into their rendering workflow. So from a data user's perspective, it's best to already have the tag there. Apparently there are already mappers who add this information (we just need to guide them to not put it in the wrong tag) and I trust wetware over software for this task. On the other hand, if someone wants to run a bot that adds total_tracks=* where it does not yet exist, and results are subject to human review before upload back to OSM, I'd be fine with that. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Advice clarification of the railway tracks=* tag required.
2012/8/11 Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com: I've added track_detail=yes in places where there are tracks1 tags but the lines are separately drawn. I've included some that have been there for a while. I've contacted the only people who I'm aware that use the tracks data (itoworld) to see if deleting the tracks tags (or setting them all to tracks=1) causes them any stress, and whether they prefer it one way or the other. Deleting a lot of tracks tags (or setting them all to 1) involves removing data that some people may be using, so I'm not proposing to do that yet. I'd propose to set tracks to 1 in cases where a osm way represents a single track, and to the number of tracks in the other cases. Adding an additional track_detail=yes without modifying the tracks value doesn't sound like a good idea. How could this be evaluated to see the actual number of tracks (you won't be able to see which tracks belong together e.g. in situations where several routes share the same place for a short time)? cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Advice clarification of the railway tracks=* tag required.
On 10/08/2012 23:30, Richard Mann wrote: I've added track_detail=yes in places where there are tracks1 tags but the lines are separately drawn. I've included some that have been there for a while. I've contacted the only people who I'm aware that use the tracks data (itoworld) to see if deleting the tracks tags (or setting them all to tracks=1) causes them any stress, and whether they prefer it one way or the other. Deleting a lot of tracks tags (or setting them all to 1) involves removing data that some people may be using, so I'm not proposing to do that yet. There is no benefit in adding yet another tag to cover up other inaccurate tags. Just revert your detrimental edits. I fail to see the point in asking ITO as the tag usage is clearly laid out in the wiki. Please rescind your edits. They add errors into the OSM database. Dave F. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Advice clarification of the railway tracks=* tag required.
I've added track_detail=yes in places where there are tracks1 tags but the lines are separately drawn. I've included some that have been there for a while. I've contacted the only people who I'm aware that use the tracks data (itoworld) to see if deleting the tracks tags (or setting them all to tracks=1) causes them any stress, and whether they prefer it one way or the other. Deleting a lot of tracks tags (or setting them all to 1) involves removing data that some people may be using, so I'm not proposing to do that yet. Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Advice clarification of the railway tracks=* tag required.
On 09/08/2012 00:03, Richard Mann wrote: 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. No, All users except you, for the reason it was created which is clearly defined in the wiki. 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. That wasn't the reason I contacted you. It's disappointing you attempted to high-jack an already established tag with something that even you seem unclear about. Dave F. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Advice clarification of the railway tracks=* tag required.
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 1:03 PM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: Disappointing that you didn't rescind your track edits first Then do it. The current tagging of your example with tracks=4 is simply wrong. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Advice clarification of the railway tracks=* tag required.
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 a_pir...@hotmail.com wrote: ** Look at this examplehttp://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.60938lon=5.57874zoom=16layers=Mand 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 thishttp://www.papou.byethost9.com/tmp/Kinkempois.png... 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 thishttp://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.534604lon=5.626856zoom=18layers=M . 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
Re: [Tagging] Advice clarification of the railway tracks=* tag required.
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.
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 pier...@gmail.com 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.
On 08/08/2012 13:14, Pieren wrote: On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com mailto: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. 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.
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com 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.
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.
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com 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.
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 12:23 PM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com 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.
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.
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 5:46 PM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com 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.
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.
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
[Tagging] Advice clarification of the railway tracks=* tag required.
Hi A user in GB has been editing railway lines by adding tracks=4 even though each individual track has been mapped: www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/174899570 From the railway page of the wiki: When modeling multi-track parallel railway lines in close proximity they can either be modeled as a single way with tracks=*, or as a number of parallel ways. The tracks=* tag should be used to record the number of tracks with a default value of 1 being assumed where this is not supplied. In the example he's tagged each way with tracks=4. Going on what the wiki says this implies there are a total of 16 tracks on the ground. This seems incorrect tagging to me. I've contacted him directly received a reply but he appears to think his way is correct the wiki wrong, so I'm posting here for advice clarification. 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.
At 2012-08-07 14:56, Dave F. wrote: Hi A user in GB has been editing railway lines by adding tracks=4 even though each individual track has been mapped: www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/174899570 From the railway page of the wiki: When modeling multi-track parallel railway lines in close proximity they can either be modeled as a single way with tracks=*, or as a number of parallel ways. The tracks=* tag should be used to record the number of tracks with a default value of 1 being assumed where this is not supplied. In the example he's tagged each way with tracks=4. Going on what the wiki says this implies there are a total of 16 tracks on the ground. This seems incorrect tagging to me. I've contacted him directly received a reply but he appears to think his way is correct the wiki wrong, so I'm posting here for advice clarification. The wiki is correct. This is similar to the way roads are mapped - when a road that has lanes=2 is split into two parallel one-way roads, they are each tagged lanes=1 to continue to correctly indicate the number of lanes that each way represents. Similarly, if you were to split a railway with tracks=2 into two separate parallel tracks, each would be tagged tracks=1 (or have no tracks=* tag at all, since this is documented to mean the same thing as tracks=1). -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Advice clarification of the railway tracks=* tag required.
I guess that'll be me. The total number of tracks is a useful piece of data, whereas tracks=1 on the four individual tracks is useless. I don't really mind where the information is stored; the tracks tag looked like a sensible place to me (and indeed was already being used in this way in some places). Richard On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 10:56 PM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: Hi A user in GB has been editing railway lines by adding tracks=4 even though each individual track has been mapped: www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/174899570 From the railway page of the wiki: When modeling multi-track parallel railway lines in close proximity they can either be modeled as a single way with tracks=*, or as a number of parallel ways. The tracks=* tag should be used to record the number of tracks with a default value of 1 being assumed where this is not supplied. In the example he's tagged each way with tracks=4. Going on what the wiki says this implies there are a total of 16 tracks on the ground. This seems incorrect tagging to me. I've contacted him directly received a reply but he appears to think his way is correct the wiki wrong, so I'm posting here for advice clarification. Cheers Dave F. ___ 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.
Tracks is actually mostly used in the UK to tag the total number of tracks, whether the lines have been individually mapped or not (this snapshot is a few days old): http://www.itoworld.com/map/14#lat=51.78185298480979lon=-0.5093040346167376zoom=7 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Advice clarification of the railway tracks=* tag required.
On 08/08/2012 00:05, Richard Mann wrote: ...whether the lines have been individually mapped or not: You're incorrect to think this. As I've said before it's used to clarify how many tracks each way represents. http://www.itoworld.com/map/14#lat=51.78185298480979lon=-0.5093040346167376zoom=7 This is a useful tool as it shows us where the ways weren't tagged correctly when created, using, I suspect, the (R)eplicate key. Thanks. For example, South Wales: http://www.itoworld.com/map/14#lat=51.577855613008666lon=-2.8221462012831355zoom=18 This indicates a minimum of 10 tracks, whereas in reality it only has 4: Poltatch 2: http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?lat=51.577856lon=-2.822146zoom=18 These inaccuracies will be added to my to do list. 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.
On 2012-08-07 23:56, Dave F. wrote : Hi A user in GB has been editing railway lines by adding tracks=4 even though each individual track has been mapped: www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/174899570 From the railway page of the wiki: "When modeling multi-track parallel railway lines in close proximity they can either be modeled as a single way with tracks=*, or as a number of parallel ways." "The tracks=* tag should be used to record the number of tracks with a default value of 1 being assumed where this is not supplied. " In the example he's tagged each way with tracks=4. Going on what the wiki says this implies there are a total of 16 tracks on the ground. This seems incorrect tagging to me. I've contacted him directly received a reply but he appears to think his way is correct the wiki wrong, so I'm posting here for advice clarification. Cheers Dave F. Look at this example and 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
