Re: [Talk-transit] Making bus lines more specific

[Tijmen Stam]

Hello Robin,

I highly agree with you.
The main reason for PTv2 not having as widespread adoption as it could 
have is that it is not rendered, that is to say, it is not rendered on 
OSM_carto (Osmand's rendering of PTv2 is near-perfect).


However, we're stuck with a rendering "committee" that for years have 
delayed the rendering of PTv2 based on not having the right 
[rendering]datamodel, and now that we have that datamodel, they 
basically say "I oppose the PTv2" and closed all pull requests asking 
for it in may 2019.


See my comment on 
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/3232#issuecomment-491007730


Tijmen / IIVQ





On 28-04-20 13:36, Robin Däneke wrote:
Any tag we could come up with is going to be a partial misnomer for what 
we are trying to model in the Database. In OSM, there are lots of those…


highway=bus_stop on the side of the road is somewhat trivially 
understandable, but that means we need railway=tram_stop, 
railway=train_stop, waterway=ferry_stop and many other tags too, that 
could all be made redundand by the „platform“ node/way/relation being in 
a route relation that is that mean of transport.


The wonderful thing about databases is, that a lot of info kan be given 
on relational levels and inherited by all relation members. We can make 
a bunch of tags redundant by using one. And platform is the most 
truthful there. In Vienna, the Networks (Verkehrsverbunde) are working 
on only having bus stops, that have a visible, higher laying „platform“ 
(or some sort of sidewalk area) at each stop, and I can only imagine, 
the more public_transport gets, the more a bus stop is going to be the 
platform. I think we should not be tagging backwards here.


The pole is a part of the stop, but never „the stop“ itself, even if 
some people tend to see it that way. Alternatively, call it 
public_transport=stop. That would mean one area where pt stops. Then 
that would be the same as a platform, unless it is a node, when that is 
possibly just the pole. But for that, a useful micro-mapping tag 
„public_transport=pole“ would make much more sense, once again then not 
needing bus=yes,tram=yes or something like „bus_stop_pole“ „tram_stop_pole“…


This merging hw=bus_stop, rw=tram_stop into one platform or stop tag 
will make the database much more lean. And in terms of highway=bus_stop 
is difficult to remove: As this tag is the same as the platform (except 
if it is a node connected to a street, then that is a „stop_position" 
and can just be deleted) you could get one mechanical edit to take care 
f it (after getting it approved by the community and/or DWG) So that tag 
is the easiest to just purge from what it’s counterpart in p_t:v2 is!


A stop/platform node on the side of the road does the same, so this is 
just redundancy, and as platform is the more versatile tag, it should 
take precedence in this „tag-fight“.


Thanks for all the input.

KR
RobinD

Am 28.04.2020 um 12:20 schrieb Tony OSM >:


I like node highway=bus_stop for the reasons polyglot gives. bus_stop 
is here to stay cos there are too many to change, by the side of the 
highway they give directionality depending on the customary side of 
the road for driving.


public_transport=platform works well for train and some trams. To me a 
platform is a construct to assist people to get on or off the 
transport vehicle. As a waiting area  - that use is secondary.


In GB some authorities are raising the area around a bus stop to 
enable wheelchair users easier access to buses - so yes a platform tag 
is appropriate, but not for a pole placed in the ground or pedestrian 
part of the road which is the default for buses where I live.


stop_position node - to me has no function - for buses their stop 
position is the bus stop;  for trains they stop at the platform; where 
I live we have 2,3,4,5,6 car trains, the front of the train stops at 
one of two defined positions depending on the number of cars.


Simplification of PTV2 may be helpful, but I have had no strong 
frustrations when using it.


Regards

TonyS999


On 28/04/2020 09:46, Jo wrote:

The basic objection they voice is why need 2 tags, if 1 does the job.

highway=bus_stop

is not exactly nonsensical. It's concise and expresses what is meant. 
(OK, it's not a highway and my preference is to map it next to the 
highway)



public_transport=platform

was designed at first to not need a mode of transport like 
bus=yes/tram=yes. I am the one who proposed adding it, so that it 
COULD start replacing highway=bus_stop back in 2012.


There is not always a platform present, so it's a bit of a misnomer 
as well.


Anyway, someone who wants to render a bus stop ideally wants to look 
at a single tag, not a combination of 2, apparently. For a long time 
it was supposedly a technical problem, but as soon as that was 
resolved somewhere around 2017, it was still considered problematic 
to look at 2 tags.


I wish you good luck with 

Re: [Talk-transit] Making bus lines more specific

[Tijmen Stam]

I have long ago proposed an addition to the PTv2 "route" schedule, which 
is the "formula" tag. Formula's would be defined within a network (or 
within a nation). For example, in the Netherlands, almost every 
transport network has so-called "buurtbus", litterally "neighbourhood 
bus" although they often run for 30-50 km, in areas too sparsely 
populated for a regular bus. They are driven by volunteers and other 
than it being an 8-person-vehicle, they operate like a normal bus. You 
have to pay, they run a fixed route and timetable.


Next to that, we have several transport authorities demanding the brand 
"R·NET" for faster public transport services.


But then some companies have within their branded network several 
formulas. For example, in the area I work for, the company (Connexxion, 
a subsidary of Transdev) has branded itself as "Overal" (Everywhere) and 
has several lines under formulas as "Buurtbus", "Overal Flex" 
(dial-a-ride on fixed routes and times), "Overal Taxi" (reduced tariff 
taxi), "Texelhopper" (island-specific dial-a-ride).


So I guess this key/value can be used for bus lines like you mean.
Alternatively, a key "brt=yes" can be added. I think the term BRT is 
sufficiently well-known worldwide that is has become something of a 
standard, although what would count as BRT in one area will be the 
lowest quality of buses in others, so it's up to the local transit 
authority to label their bus routes as BRT.

Tijmen / IIVQ

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

Re: [Talk-transit] Multiple ref=* on route=train

[Tijmen Stam]

On 19-11-19 12:25, Tony OSM wrote:

Hi Janko

In my experience all railway companies give a journey a reference 
Headcode like that, though the format differs. In Great Britain the 
format used is ncnn, so for example 2P44 is a train from Manchester 
Victoria to Preston  departing 10:05. the next service will be issued a 
different Headcode. The Headcode is usually used internally within the 
railway; some  GB trains show a reference number on the doors and 
announcement system - this is not the headcode but the train number and 
is different for each service, look at https://traksy.uk/live to get 
unofficial service data and train locations  in GB.


Personally I am not convinced that the headcode or train number is 
useful as a reference, they change every 6 months when the timetable 
changes (most of Europe) - so a maintenance nightmare.


I think that a service reference which every train on a route uses and 
is shown on the vehicle is useful - such as the service number for a 
tram or bus - like you have created for the service 150 Garaža Tuškanac 
- Gornji grad.


I agree with you.
In the Netherlands, there are no train route numbers like this. 
Internally (and among hobbyists) we speak of a "series 2900" train which 
goes from Enkhuizen to Maastricht, but those train numbers are somewhat 
hidden to the public - they aren't on the timetable boards or digital 
board, available only on a mouseover in the train planner.


Only some regional trains are starting to get an S-number (like german 
S-bahns), but these numbers can overlap in different parts of the 
country, i.e. an S21 in both the south and north of the country.


Tijmen

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

Re: [Talk-transit] Long bus routes

[Tijmen Stam]

On 05-08-19 13:22, Dave F via Talk-transit wrote:



On 02/08/2019 14:35, Janko Mihelić wrote:
I think they should be mapped as relations with only stations in the 
relation.


How would you perform real-time tracking?


I think that is not something one does on OSM.

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

Re: [Talk-transit] Long bus routes

[Tijmen Stam]

On 02-08-19 15:35, Janko Mihelić wrote:
A user in Europe started adding long bus lines some time ago. These 
routes are crossing several countries and mostly drive along motorways. 
Here is a piece of motorway between Berlin and Dresden:


https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/313980637

it has two road routes, and 13 Flixbus bus routes. I think this can't be 
sustainable. If all bus companies started adding these routes, we could 
have a hundred or more relations on motorway ways.


Are there any recommendations about routes like this on the wiki? I 
think they should be mapped as relations with only stations in the relation.


What are your thoughts?


I have had the same idea before.
Mainly because some of these operators have non-fixed routes between 
their stations. They are able (either on the discretion of the driver or 
dispatching) to choose between different roads based on traffic, and 
will frequently do so.


This is not compareable to long distance trains, which will only in rare 
cases deviate from their standard route, mainly because the train 
network is so much sparser.


Tijmen/IIVQ

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

Re: [Talk-transit] Public transport validator+generator from Maps.Me

[Tijmen Stam]

On 11-06-19 18:13, Alexey Zakharenkov via Talk-transit wrote:

Hi, Noémie, Mateusz and others!

I’ve extracted all the generated error messages from our subway validator 
source and list them below with some comments. You’ll see that most of them 
concern topology of a transport network which requires much programming and 
cannot be expressed in terms of MapCSS rules.
Please express your opinion if you consider some checks to be arguable.



Another question:

* Hole in route rails near node n591991832 (relation 366764, "NYCS - G 
Train")


This seems to happen both to "genuine" holes and where there are very 
minor route variations, and people didn't bother to put in a second 
route. E.G. a train route can have it's final station (where it 
reverses) on either of two tracks.
How should we cope with this where something is not a route variation 
stop-wise, but it is with respect to the track???


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

Re: [Talk-transit] Public transport validator+generator from Maps.Me

[Tijmen Stam]

On 11-06-19 18:13, Alexey Zakharenkov via Talk-transit wrote:

Hi, Noémie, Mateusz and others!

I’ve extracted all the generated error messages from our subway validator 
source and list them below with some comments. You’ll see that most of them 
concern topology of a transport network which requires much programming and 
cannot be expressed in terms of MapCSS rules.
Please express your opinion if you consider some checks to be arguable.



Trying to solve a bit in France/Belgium/The Netherlands...

I found (in France->Lyon)
* 3 unused stations: n5509480923, n5821110979, n5821110983
Those three are station=subway. Yet they are used by funicular lines. 
How should they be tagged?


*  Subway entrance is not a node (way 84606562, "Ascenseur Métro 
Direction La Soie")


This is a square for the ascenseur, which is a subway entrance. Should a 
separate node be drawn for this entrance? I think that's a bit overkill.


Tijmen / IIVQ

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

Re: [Talk-transit] Public transport validator+generator from Maps.Me

[Tijmen Stam]

On 11-06-19 18:13, Alexey Zakharenkov via Talk-transit wrote:

Thank you for the list!

There are a few I have questions about, either about your validator or 
about the general use of the transit tags.



*) "Missing station= on a feature".
Requires that railway=station/halt object be tagged with 
'station=subway/light_rail/monorail' or have '=yes’. ’train’ mode is 
silently assumed for railways.


I am not convinced that a station-tag is necessary on subway/lr/mr stations.


*) "Angle between stops around  is too narrow,  degrees".
A sharp twist of a route most probably indicates incorrect stops order.


I don't understand what exactly is measured with this. E.G. the relation 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7786749#map=16/50.6893/3.1734 
(France->Lille), Euroteleport is given as having a too narrow angle, 34 
degrees. 34 degrees between what and what? And what is the cutoff?



*) "Route has different network from master"


Why would you include a network in a route if the route has a master?


*) "Stop area belongs to multiple interchanges"


What do you mean with this?


*) "Only one route in route_master. Please check if it needs a return route".
Non-circular route must have a reversed one. For circular route this is a 
warning.


As Jo already said, there are many one-way routes. E.g. our routes 250 
 and 612 
 in North-Holland are 
one-way routes (in both cases because they are a morning-peak 
reinforcement of another route, namely the 350 and 412)



*) The validator also compares the number of found stations/routes in a network 
with predefined values from CSV. This kind of checksumming helps to detect 
station/route disappearing or opening new ones.


Good!


**) Warnings are generated about missing/wrong station/line colour, different colour/ref of route and route_master, holes in rails,  
"Subway entrance is not a node", "Stop position in a 'platform' role in a route", "Platform in a 'stop' role in a 
route", "Stop is too far from tracks", "Stop position is not on tracks", "Tracks seem to go in the opposite 
direction to stops".


Speaking about colours: there are some interesting colouring systems in 
the Netherlands.


U-OV (Utrecht city bus) does not have "line" colours, but "destination" 
colours.
All buses going to the Uithof would be orange, while all buses going to 
Vleuten are blue and to Utrecht central station are Red.
So a line 28 that runs from Vleuten via the central station to Uithof 
has orange as line colour, while the opposite direction, which is also 
line 28, is blue. A short working from the Uithof to the central station 
has red, while it's opposite (going to the Uithof) would still be orange.
See 
 
for the list of colours.


In Amsterdam, the subway has line coulours, but the tram lines don't 
have colours on the trams, but colour combinations.
Originally designed for illiterates, this system continues to work today 
and is shown on all trams.
See 
 
for the list of all combinations and 
 
for a photo of three trams showing it (the older ones are even refitted 
with an electronic LED-display being able to show much more, such as a 
crown for the special "kingsday-lines" or a sailboat for "sail"-festival 
lines. (But those are one-day-a-year lines not mapped on OSM).


greetings,

Tijmen/IIVQ

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

Re: [Talk-transit] Public transport validator+generator from Maps.Me

[Tijmen Stam]

On 29-05-19 17:35, Alexey Zakharenkov via Talk-transit wrote:

Hello everybody!

I'm a part of team who worries about public transport status in OSM database, 
especially rapid transit transport. I want to represent a public transport 
validator+generator that somebody might find a useful facility. It's open 
source:

https://github.com/mapsme/subways

Given a list of transport networks it generates output suitable not only for 
rendering PT routes but also for routing. Meanwhile it finds errors like gaps 
in rail/road sequence in a route, absent/doubling station at a stop, etc. We 
run the validator daily and publish the results at

http://osm-subway.maps.me

The page shows that even large and important subway systems (like New York 
Subway) in OSM DB are currently corrupted and therefore unusable for practical 
purposes. Difficulties occur not only due to negligent mapping but also due to 
misalignment how to map PT. I call you, who is interested in PT, to use this 
instrument, evaluate it and give feedback. We're ready to improve this tool for 
the community sake and take into account worthwhile suggestions.

Thank you for your attention.
I'm ready to answer any questions.


Thank you, very useful!

I have not tested this but think that your preprocessor requires a 
"station" node. However, I don't see this necessity in PT v_2.


For Belgium, I am missing the Charleroi lightrail (Metro Leger) system 
(and possibly Antwerps "premetro" system, but that is a mixture of tram 
and subway.

For Austria, I am missing the Dorfbahn Serfaus system.

Then a question about Rotterdam: Should an "Entrance" be used at 
aboveground stations? E.g. Maassluis west (converted from train station 
/ to be opened:

https://www.google.nl/maps/place/Maassluis/@51.9262933,4.2356667,214m
Where should the entrance be placed?

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

Re: [Talk-transit] "more then one platform in one location"

[Tijmen Stam]

> On Mon, 13 May 2019 at 14:44, Dave F via Talk-transit
> mailto:talk-transit@openstreetmap.org>>
> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> On the railway=platform wiki page there's a comment:
>
> "If there are more then one platform in one location, a relation
> could be used to "bind" them together. See Approved Public Transport
> Schema
> 


> for more information."
>
>
> What does the "more then one platform in one location" mean? Are
> there examples?

On 14-05-19 15:43, David Peek via Talk-transit wrote:
I believe this is intended to mean that if a named location (which could 
be a railway station, bus station, metro station, tram stop or an 
interchange incorporating more than one mode of transport) has more than 
one place where one can board or alight from a transit vehicle, then 
they should all be included in a relation.


For example, here is the relation for Manchester Piccadilly station 
 
in England. Arguably it also ought to include the local bus stops as 
well as the train and tram platforms which it currently does.


Yeah, but there is also the "stop_area_group" 
 
which is undocumented but I think is meant to group together multiple 
stop areas. How this is meant exactly I don't know, but I would imagine 
that for the Picadilly station, there would be stop_areas for

- All the train tracks of the "Manchester Picadilly" rail station
- The stops for the metrolink tram stop
- Piccadilly Rail station bus stop
- Whitworth St/Minshull St South bus stop
- Fairfield St/Picadilly Station bus stops

and then a stop_area_group to group these all together.
Although I don't know if this was indeed the original meaning of the author.

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

Re: [Talk-transit] Old Railways

[Tijmen Stam]

On 18-05-19 17:40, Tim Saunders wrote:
I suspect I am a lone voice but I don't agree.  The thing that 
differentiates railways from a lot of historical features is they form a 
network, some if which is still an operating railway and a lot of which 
is still visible in the ground.  Having the extant sections in one 
database and the razed/dismantled sections in another is just making it 
unnecessarily complex to form a picture of the entire network, which for 
the sake of a few additional ways on OSM (which I agree would not 
generally be rendered) can be easily solved.


Roads do also form a network. And it would be equally interesting to see 
how roads from yesteryear connected to it. Yet we don't keep those on 
OSM (I personally removed miles of highway, from two different highways, 
the minute they went out of use - or actually I didn't, I first made 
them highway=road as the actual tarmac stayed visible for a few 
months/years)




Regards,

Tim Saunders


Date: Fri, 17 May 2019 16:03:43 +0200 (CEST)
From: Mateusz Konieczny 
Cc: Public transport/transit/shared taxi related topics
     
Subject: Re: [Talk-transit] Old railways
This is undesirable, OSM is not a place to map historic data. When I 
encounter such mismapped

objects I remove them.

___
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] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme

[Tijmen Stam]

On 13-05-19 00:14, Jo wrote:
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.


I don't agree with you on that point. With that view we can't change 
things in OSM anymore to a more precise mapping.


IMHO it shouldn't be the internal OSM database ID that makes something a 
"logical object", but the ref on that object.
Say you're transitioning from a node to a way for a bus stop, simply 
copy the relevant tags from that node to the way.



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

Re: [Talk-transit] Old railways

[Tijmen Stam]

On 13-05-19 01:33, Mike N wrote:

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).


Thank you (and John Whelan)


I still wish it was easier to migrate objects to Open Historical Map.


The method I used yesterday was
1. download from OSM (or Overpass Turbo) into JOSM
2. Copy wanted data to new layer
3. edit (if necessary)
4. change api in JOSM
5. upload

  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



___
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

[Tijmen Stam]

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] Old railways

[Tijmen Stam]

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. 
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/419757167> or 
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/191384386> (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 <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/672838805>, 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] Old railways

[Tijmen Stam]

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

[Talk-transit] Rendering for public_transport=platform cancelled?

[Tijmen Stam]

Dear all,

One of the greatest oppositions to using full pt_v2 (and thus 
abolishment of the double-tagging with 
highway=bus_stop/railway=tram_stop nodes where a linear/area 
public_transport=platform exists) was that public_transport=platform 
isn't rendered on osm-carto.


Now it seems, that the pull request trying to make 
public_transport=platform rendering work is closed, because the few 
people who have vowed to pick up this issue are busy but also ... think 
it is a duplication of highway=bus_stop.


https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/3232

This is a prime example of a deadlock.

IIVQ/Tijmen Stam

___
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

[Tijmen Stam]

On 06-05-19 19:29, Stephen Sprunk wrote:

On 2019-04-30 06:06, Dave F via Talk-transit wrote:

On 29/04/2019 16:22, Stephen Sprunk wrote:


Stop areas are supposed to link stop positions to platforms, so a 
router knows which platform you need to take a route that only stops 
on a particular track.  In most cases, this can be inferred by 
proximity, but in some it can't, particularly at very complex stations.


If there needs to be a 'link' (& I'm still not convinced it does), can
it not be achieved with unifying tags on nodes/ways? Why does it
require a relation?

Relations were devised to allow items which couldn't be achieved on
nodes/ways alone (ie routes) not to collect things together. If it can
be done without relations it makes tagging so much simpler & less
prone to errors.


What is the "unifying tag" you propose, and how would it work?

I'd love to see stop areas go away, or at least limited to instances 
where the link between stop position and platform can't be deduced from 
geometry.  Heck, in most cases, the stop position itself can be deduced 
from the platform and route geometry--assuming the platform is in the 
route relation, which isn't always the case.


But in some it can't.

Also, the stop_area is, in the Netherlands, a concept used to map all 
stops "belonging" to each other together, for trhansit open data/transit 
planners. e.g. all four stops around a junction will be one "stop_area" 
(having one ref:IFOPT:NL:S: reference), even when those four 
stops will have different names (e.g. named in pairs after the side street).


Example of a stop_area with stops: 
 (unfortunately, this is 
not the best example as the whole station complex is divided into three 
stop_areas, one for the subway, and two for the east and west bus station)


___
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

[Tijmen Stam]

On 28-04-19 16:27, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:

On Sun, 28 Apr 2019 at 10:04, Markus  wrote:



Tram stops often have platforms (and bus stops sometimes too). For
such stops, two PTv1 elements are necessary because railway=tram_stop
can't be used on the same area (or way) as railway=platform (they use
the same key). With a new tag for stops (such as the suggested
public_transport=stop tag) or a new tag for platforms, this were
possible. However, much retagging were needed. Alternatively,
railway=tram_stop (or highway=bus_stop) could be placed on the
platform area (first suggested solution).


In some cases I've seen (https://osm.org/way/395511322 comes to mind),
the duplicate tagging when platforms are present is handled by having
hw=bus_stop tag on one of the nodes of the platform way, and then the
platform way has hw=platform (pt=platform in this case but it would
work with hw=platform as well). That helps to compute "these are part
of one logical stop" without needing a relation.


I never understood the whole railway=platform discussion.
IHMO hw=bus_stop, hw=platform and rw=platform should die, and all be 
replaced by public_transport=platform (but for widespread acceptance, 
rendering on openstreetmap.org standard and public_transport layers, for 
node/way/areas should exist).


I have updated entire public transport concessions with almost all stops 
having a platform way or area. In places where I did make something 
_new_, I didn't include highway=bus_stop and deleted the old one, under 
the "don't tag for the renderer" idea, and everything works fine on my 
preferred renderer (osmand)


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

[Tijmen Stam]

On 28-04-19 16:02, Markus wrote:

On Sat, 27 Apr 2019 at 14:30, Snusmumriken
 wrote:


Somehow I think that it is too late to define one schema that would
rule the world. Too much has already been mapped for it to be redone.
But I might be wrong. I also share your observation that PTv2 is way
too complex.


In my opinion, it's never too late for improvements. :) And if we go
for the first solution ("improved PTv1"), not much retagging were
required as nearly all stops, stations and platforms use the PTv1 tags
for rendering anyway.


For what it is worth I might point you to have a look at how things are
mapped in Stockholm metropolitan region. It is our version of a
simplified PTv2. Unfortunately there isn't any English language
definition of it. But I hope an example is self explanatory enough
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2376126


This seems like normal PTv1 except you have routes in both ways, which 
very easily could be brought up to PTv2 standards:


If you would give the stop nodes the "platform" node instead of "stop" 
and public_transport=platform (and move all the stops to the top of the 
ways), you would confirm to PTv2 (off course you would also have to 
change the version from 1 to 2).


Note that nowhere in the PTv2 wiki it says it is mandatory to have both 
a stop and a platform! Either one is ok (although I strongly prefer to 
have both).


IIVQ

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

Re: [Talk-transit] Line colour, text colour and background colour

[Tijmen Stam]

On 29-04-19 16:58, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
The route and route_master relations have a documented "colour" key that 
can be used.  However, that seems to be intended for the line itself, 
and I'm not aware of any renderer that uses it.  If they did, they'd 
probably use it for the label background too.


Relation:destination_sign has attributes colour:back and colour:text, so 
it makes sense to reuse those here, but if renderers aren't even using 
colour for the line/label today, I wouldn't count on them doing anything 
special with the text either.


OSMand (openstreetmap for Android) does render colour for subway lines, 
and it renders de coulours in line labels for bus lines.


For e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/297293I have used 
colour=#ff (both in the route and route_master) and it renders good 
on OSMand.


Keeping in line with other tagging schemes I would use "Colour" for the 
colour of the line (on maps etc), ref:colour for the colour of the text, 
and if necessary: ref:colour_tx for reference text colour and 
ref_colour_bg for reference background colour as per 



(In your example I can see e.g. the 22/34/40 being Lime/Blue/Bordeaux as 
"colour", having white as colour:ref, but N1, N2, N7 would have green, 
pink, yellow as colour, having those as colour:ref as well, but black as 
colour_bg.


I have no idea what the line colour of the TR line will be though. 
Black? White? :-)




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

Re: [OSM-talk-nl] Uithoorn

[Tijmen Stam]

On 25-07-16 16:58, Ante Wessels wrote:


Sebastiaan Couwenberg writes:


On 07/25/2016 01:32 PM, Ante Wessels wrote:

Ik reed laatst het dorpje binnen waar ik geboren ben, Uithoorn, en merkte dat 
de rondweg waar tientallen jaren over gepraat is warempel aangelegd is (N201+).

Hij staat als ontwerp in OSM. Nu heb ik al tien jaar geen OSM editor meer 
gebruikt, dus als iemand anders de status wil veranderen, dank.


De N201+ is al sinds 2014 klaar en in gebruik, zo ook in OSM.

Waar zie je nog stukken N201+ in de oude staat?


Ah, dat zal mijn fout zijn. Off-line map op telefoon al lang niet
geupdate.


Kijk, dat maakt het verschil. Ik betaal voor OSMand en download elke 
maand zowat heel europa, mijn kaarten zijn daarom nooit meer dan een dag 
of 40 oud. :-)


En ik merk vaak (en zorg er af en toe voor) dat grote wegen al een paar 
na opening op OSM staan. Als er bij werkzaamheden staat "GPS uit" dan 
volg ik juist trouw wat OSM mij vertelt.


Tijmen


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

Re: [OSM-talk-nl] Verplaatsen bushaltes/routes Amstelstation

[Tijmen Stam]

Voor mij niet, maar laat je daar niet door weerhouden!

Tijmen

On 08-06-16 23:20, Jo wrote:

Hallo Tijmen,

Hangouts on Air worden opgeslagen op Youtube en zijn live mee te volgen.
Maar die doe ik niet zo vaak.

Ik wil wel een nieuwe hangout doen. Misschien wil Freek ook meedoen.
Past morgenavond om 20u?

Jo

Op 8 juni 2016 22:24 schreef Tijmen Stam <mailingli...@iivq.net
<mailto:mailingli...@iivq.net>>:

Jo,

Jij hebt destijds een hangout gedaan om het een en ander uit te
leggen over OV-lijnen bewerken, waar ik bij was. Ik was toen heel
nieuw in het OSM-OV-gebeuren.
Worden hangouts ook opgeslagen en kan je ze later nog terugzien?

Met vriendelijke groet,

Tijmen

On 04-06-16 14:18, Jo wrote:

Als je wilt, kunnen we vanavond een hangout doen. Dan leg ik je
het een
en ander uit over OV met JOSM.

Polyglot

Op 4-jun.-2016 2:13 PM schreef "Freek Dijkstra"
<fr...@macfreek.nl <mailto:fr...@macfreek.nl>
<mailto:fr...@macfreek.nl <mailto:fr...@macfreek.nl>>>:

 Goededag,

 Het busstation bij Amsterdam Amstel is verplaatst, en zal
later nogmaals
 verplaatst worden (zie https://www.amsterdam.nl/amstelstation).

 Er lopen busroutes over dit terrein, en die wil ik graag ook
 verplaatsen. Wat is de beste manier om routes te bewerken?
Ik gebruik
 eigenlijk alleen de online editor op osm.org
<http://osm.org> <http://osm.org>, maar
 die interface is niet
 helemaal geschikt.

 Wat ik nu doe is:
 1. Selecteer een straat of bushalte
 2. In het "Edit feature" paneel, klik op een relatie.
Bijvoorbeeld Bus
 Route lijn 240.
 3. In het "Edit feature" paneel, staat een lijst van
"members": de
 straten (en haltes?) van de route.

 Ik loop echter tegen een paar beperkingen aan:
 - ik kan de volgorde van members niet verplaatsen door deze
omhoog of
 omlaag te verslepen.
 - ik kan wel een "relatie" toevoegen, maar zo te zien geen
"member".
 - een aantal van de members heeft als beschrijving "",
 en ik zie niet hoe ik deze straten en haltes zichtbaar kan
maken in de
 lijst.

 Heeft iemand advies hoe een halte en route van een buslijn
makkelijk te
 wijzigen is?

 Groet,
 Freek

 ___
 Talk-nl mailing list
Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org>
<mailto:Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org
<mailto:Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org>>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl



___
Talk-nl mailing list
Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl



___
Talk-nl mailing list
Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl




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




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

Re: [OSM-talk-nl] Verplaatsen bushaltes/routes Amstelstation

[Tijmen Stam]

Jo,

Jij hebt destijds een hangout gedaan om het een en ander uit te leggen 
over OV-lijnen bewerken, waar ik bij was. Ik was toen heel nieuw in het 
OSM-OV-gebeuren.

Worden hangouts ook opgeslagen en kan je ze later nog terugzien?

Met vriendelijke groet,

Tijmen

On 04-06-16 14:18, Jo wrote:

Als je wilt, kunnen we vanavond een hangout doen. Dan leg ik je het een
en ander uit over OV met JOSM.

Polyglot

Op 4-jun.-2016 2:13 PM schreef "Freek Dijkstra" >:

Goededag,

Het busstation bij Amsterdam Amstel is verplaatst, en zal later nogmaals
verplaatst worden (zie https://www.amsterdam.nl/amstelstation).

Er lopen busroutes over dit terrein, en die wil ik graag ook
verplaatsen. Wat is de beste manier om routes te bewerken? Ik gebruik
eigenlijk alleen de online editor op osm.org , maar
die interface is niet
helemaal geschikt.

Wat ik nu doe is:
1. Selecteer een straat of bushalte
2. In het "Edit feature" paneel, klik op een relatie. Bijvoorbeeld Bus
Route lijn 240.
3. In het "Edit feature" paneel, staat een lijst van "members": de
straten (en haltes?) van de route.

Ik loop echter tegen een paar beperkingen aan:
- ik kan de volgorde van members niet verplaatsen door deze omhoog of
omlaag te verslepen.
- ik kan wel een "relatie" toevoegen, maar zo te zien geen "member".
- een aantal van de members heeft als beschrijving "",
en ik zie niet hoe ik deze straten en haltes zichtbaar kan maken in de
lijst.

Heeft iemand advies hoe een halte en route van een buslijn makkelijk te
wijzigen is?

Groet,
Freek

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



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




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

Re: [OSM-talk-nl] Luchtfoto's 2014 CycloMedia

[Tijmen Stam]

Ik heb net de URL binnengekregen.

Ik moet eerlijk gezegd ook zeggen dat de kwaliteit me wat tegenviel. 
Vaak een stuk minder goed dan Google en, omdat Google net een update 
heeft gedaan, minder actueel. De beeldkwaliteit is in delen van het land 
zelfs minder dan de Bing-WMS die we mogen gebruiken.


Tijmen

On 11-01-16 09:27, Frank Steggink wrote:

Beste lijstgenoten,

Vanochtend heb ik een e-mail gekregen van Cyclomedia met de URL van de
endpoint + inloggegevens. Je kunt de WMS op de normale manier toevoegen.
Wanneer je de lagen opvraagt, krijg je eerst een popup waar je de
inloggegevens moet invullen. Kies vervolgens de laag
NL_aerial_2014_50cm, wijzig eventueel de naam voor gebruik in JOSM en
sla de laag op.

De WMS ondersteunt geen EPSG:3857 (World Mercator), maar wel EPSG:4326
(WGS84). Op zich is dat niet erg, want er zijn geen verschilen die door
rotatie ontstaan tussen WM en WGS84. Op kleine schaal (landelijk niveau)
zul je wel verschil zien, maar op het schaalniveau waarop we de
luchtfoto's gebruiken (dus ingezoomd op buurtniveau) niet.

Een eerste indruk is dat deze laag goed ligt. Ik had ook niet anders
verwacht, tenzij e.e.a. verschoven ligt vanwege offset-instellingen. De
BAG-panden in Papendorp (blokkendozen) liggen perfect, maar bijv. bij
mijn huis elders in Utrecht lijkt op het eerste gezicht een kleine
afwijking te zijn. Bij nadere inspectie blijkt dit door de parallax te
komen, dus het verschijnsel waarbij gebouwen gaan overhellen.

De kwaliteit van de luchtfoto's vind ik tegenvallen. Ik had er meer van
verwacht. 50cm is dus toch erg weinig. Niet genoeg voor het tekenen van
features als je een hele hoge kwaliteit nastreeft (bijv. BGT-niveau),
maar nog wel bruikbaar voor het alignen van wegen, e.d. Ook is de
schaduw hinderlijk, terwijl het contrast van de lichte delen matig is.
Misschien is de kwaliteit beter bij gebruik van het RD stelsel in JOSM.

De gebruikte JOSM-versie is 9329, dus de laatste stabiele release (met
RD-ondersteuning).

Groeten,

Frank

On 10-1-2016 21:43, Frank Steggink wrote:

Ik ben me nu aan het registreren. Ik vind wel dat er erg veel gegevens
ingevuld moeten worden, bijv. geboortedatum. Ik mis dan ook een
privacy-statement. (De link op de site gaat over de 360 graden-foto's.)

Groeten,

Frank

On 10-1-2016 21:40, Frank Steggink wrote:

Maarten,

Zoals ik artikel 1.3.4 interpreteer van de ToU denk ik dat het niet
is toegestaan om deze luchtfoto's tezamen met OSM te visualiseren.
Het enige wat is toegestaan, is om ze te gebruiken voor het bijwerken
van OSM. Je mag niet de key die je ontvangen zou moeten hebben (of
gaat ontvangen) delen.

De meest gedetailleerde luchtfoto's van Bing hebbne in het algemeen
dezelfde resolutie. In ieder geval is de kwaliteit van de
Bing-luchtfoto's vaak niet denderend, omdat ze voor een deel ook via
een satelliet genoemn zijn. Verder zijn de Bing-foto's al een jaar of
5 à 6 oud.

Er is hier gekozen voor de 2014-foto's, omdat dat ten tijde van de
bespreking de meest recente dataset was. (De 2015 foto's werden nog
verwerkt.) Of en wanneer de 2015-foto's beschikbaar worden gesteld,
moet nog worden bekeken. Dat hangt ervan af hoe het gebruik van deze
foto's wordt ervaren. Cyclomedia gebruikt OSM zelf ook, dus ze hebben
zelf ook belang bij deze samenwerkeign.

@Johan/Gert-Jan: waarom is er gekozen voor een engelstalige ToU?

Groeten,

Frank

On 10-1-2016 20:49, Maarten Deen wrote:

On 2016-01-10 20:38, Johan C wrote:

We zijn erg verheugd om aan te kondigen dat CycloMedia via WMS
luchtfoto's 2014 in een resolutie van 50 cm. ter beschikking stelt aan
OpenStreetMap. Om toegang te krijgen tot de luchtfoto's moet je een
licentie aangaan met CycloMedia. Dat kun je hier doen:
http://www.cyclomedia.com/nl/openstreetmap/


Dat is goed nieuws.

Ik heb wel wat vraagjes:
Hoe verhoudt 50cm resolutie zich tot de meest gedetailleerde
luchtfoto's van Bing? Ik heb geen idee wat daar de resolutie van is.
Wat betekent precies de bewoording "I shall not integrate and/or
visualize parts of the AerialNL50cm imagery in the OSM". Betekent
dat soms dat ze ook niet getoond kunnen worden in JOSM?
Als dat wel kan, kunnen de foto's dan als WMS layer in JOSM geladen
worden en hoe?

Maarten

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



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



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



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



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

Re: [OSM-talk-nl] BAG vs On-The-Ground (Was: Groenlandsekade/Groenlandse Kade, Vinkeveen)

[Tijmen Stam]

Is er een Nederlandse OSM-stichting waar ik het bord Groenlandse Kade 
aan kan doneren?


De gemeente belt dat ze de borden gaan verwijderen omdat de juiste 
schrijfwijze Groenlandsekade is :-)


Ik wacht nog even af tot de situatie op de grond ook zo is, en dan maak 
ik er Groenlandsekade van.


Tijmen

On 01-06-15 21:23, Tijmen Stam wrote:

On 01-06-15 08:51, Christ van Willegen wrote:

2015-05-31 14:32 GMT+02:00 Gert-Jan van der Weijden gee...@dds.nl:

De theorie:
In de traditie van René Magritte (Ceci n'est pas une pipe) en
Alfred Korzybski
(The map is not the territory) kun je redeneren dat de tekst op een
straatnaambord niet de straatnaam zélf is, maar slechts een indicatie
van de
straatnaam.


Zoals bij mij in de wijk. Ik zie daar borden met Finisterelaan,
Finistèrelaan
en Finisterèlaan...


Ik heb de gemeente gemaild, eens zien wat daar uit komt.

Ik werk bij Connexxion, en omdat onze apparatuur nog uit de oertijd
stamt toen Unicode nog niet bestond, hebben we besloten geen accenten
e.d. in bushaltes op te nemen. Daarom staat op onze site Bethanie ipv
Bethanië en vroeger Ariensplein ipv Ariënsplein.

Maar namen zijn complex. Zo staat in het Overzicht van de Nederlandse
spoor- en tramwegbedrijven door ir. J.W. Sluiter een voetnoot
De gemeente heet Borsele, het dorp Borssele en het station was
Borsselen..

Tijmen

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



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

Re: [OSM-talk-nl] BAG vs On-The-Ground (Was: Groenlandsekade/Groenlandse Kade, Vinkeveen)

[Tijmen Stam]

On 01-06-15 08:51, Christ van Willegen wrote:

2015-05-31 14:32 GMT+02:00 Gert-Jan van der Weijden gee...@dds.nl:

De theorie:
In de traditie van René Magritte (Ceci n'est pas une pipe) en Alfred Korzybski
(The map is not the territory) kun je redeneren dat de tekst op een
straatnaambord niet de straatnaam zélf is, maar slechts een indicatie van de
straatnaam.


Zoals bij mij in de wijk. Ik zie daar borden met Finisterelaan,
Finistèrelaan
en Finisterèlaan...


Ik heb de gemeente gemaild, eens zien wat daar uit komt.

Ik werk bij Connexxion, en omdat onze apparatuur nog uit de oertijd 
stamt toen Unicode nog niet bestond, hebben we besloten geen accenten 
e.d. in bushaltes op te nemen. Daarom staat op onze site Bethanie ipv 
Bethanië en vroeger Ariensplein ipv Ariënsplein.


Maar namen zijn complex. Zo staat in het Overzicht van de Nederlandse 
spoor- en tramwegbedrijven door ir. J.W. Sluiter een voetnoot

De gemeente heet Borsele, het dorp Borssele en het station was Borsselen..

Tijmen

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

[OSM-talk-nl] Groenlandsekade/Groenlandse Kade, Vinkeveen

[Tijmen Stam]

Hallo,

2 vragen over de Groenlandse[ K|k]ade in Vinkeveen.

1. Ik heb vaak gelezen Map what's on the ground. Hoe ga je om met een 
straat die 3 straatnaambordjes heeft, 2x Groenlandse Kade (beiden 
redelijk nieuw), 1x Groenlandsekade (ouder), maar de BAG-viewer geeft 
wel aan Groenlandsekade? De Site van de gemeente geeft Groenlandse 
kade (met spatie, zonder hoofdletter, zie 
http://www.derondevenen.nl/servicebalie/meldpunt-openbare-ruimte_3253/)


Op OSM komen beide varianten voor, de weg is ook in stukjes opgeknipt 
met verschillende naam, zie 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=groenlandsekade#map=18/52.22754/4.97983layers=N 
en 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=groenlandse+kade#map=18/52.22754/4.97983layers=N


2. Langs de Groenlandse[ K|k]ade liggen veel woningen met het adres 
volledig ingevuld, maar als naam Groenlandsekade. Het adres zit op een 
losse node. Zie bijv http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2878199639


addr:city   Vinkeveen
addr:housenumber61
addr:postcode   3645BB
addr:street Groenlandse kade
nameGroenlandsekade
source  BAG
source:date 2014-05-24

De name tag hoort toch helemaal niet op deze adresnode?
In het geval van http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/284043319 lijkt OSM 
er zelfs de voorkeur aan te geven om de name ipv het housenumber te 
renderen, dit staat op de kaart als Groenlandsekade ipv als 19A.


Tijmen

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

Re: [OSM-talk-nl] Sluiskiltunnel geopend.

[Tijmen Stam]

On 20-05-15 22:24, Lennard voor den Dag wrote:


Op 20 mei 2015 21:13 schreef Tijmen Stam mailingli...@iivq.net:


De op- en afritten van de Sluiskiltunnel staan nog als under
construction, terwijl deze gisteren geopend is. Kan iemand met lokale
kennis eens kijken of deze ongeveer goed liggen en dan de
construction-tags verwijderen?


Aanstaande zaterdag middernacht gaat de tunnel pas daadwerkelijk open. Je kunt 
er nu nog niet doorheen.


Aha, oeps!

Vreemd, meestal is een officiële opening hooguit enkele uren voordat het 
publier er door mag, en soms pas weken (maanden) er na!


Tijmen


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

[OSM-talk-nl] Sluiskiltunnel geopend.

[Tijmen Stam]

De op- en afritten van de Sluiskiltunnel staan nog als under 
construction, terwijl deze gisteren geopend is. Kan iemand met lokale 
kennis eens kijken of deze ongeveer goed liggen en dan de 
construction-tags verwijderen?


Zie http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/47806#map=16/51.2959/3.8121 en 
verder oostwaarts, aan de andere kant van het water.


Tijmen/IIVQ

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

Re: [OSM-talk-nl] Chipknip tags

[Tijmen Stam]

On 02/27/2015 09:24 AM, Maarten Deen wrote:

De Chipknip is sinds 1 januari niet meer operationeel. Ik denk dat de
oplaadpunten nu zo'n beetje overal ook wel weggehaald zijn, in ieder
geval zullen ze niet meer operationeel zijn.
Volgens Taginfo [1] zijn er nog 292 instances can chipknip in OSM. Ik
heb ze even gedownload en de meesten staan op banken (ik heb er in het
verleden zelf heel veel toegevoegd) en op winkels.
Is het een idee om die in een keer allemaal te verwijderen?
Verder is er ook nog een tag voor de betaling met een chipknip,
payment:ep_chipknip die veel minder gebruikt is [2], maar die kan ook
verwijderd worden.

Zijn er redenen om dit niet te doen?


De oplaadpaal op Schiphol Plaza staat er (afgelopen maandag) nog en doet 
het nog - dwz je kan er nog geld terug laten storten, opladen kan 
uiteraard niet meer.



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

Re: [OSM-talk-nl] URL of Website

[Tijmen Stam]

On 01/08/2015 02:00 PM, St Niklaas wrote:

Ronald,
Om het moeilijker te maken https://www. komt ook voor. Mechanisch lijkt
mij dat dan aardig lastig, ik voer ze zelf al wel in na een blik op de
site geworpen te hebben.


Theoretisch zeker een punt, praktisch valt het wel mee.
Elke site voor consumenten zal nog een http://-site hebben. Die desnoods 
doorverwijst naar https://


Tijmen

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

Re: [OSM-talk-nl] URL of Website

[Tijmen Stam]

On 01/08/2015 02:18 PM, St Niklaas wrote:

Tijmen,

Wat is een site voor consumenten ? Gelieerd aan winkels of
handelsmaatschappijen, maar zelfs de overheid gebruikt al https !
Sommige wel andere niet, maar ook de doorschakeling http(s) werkt.
Maar het is theoretisch niet waterdicht. Bv https://www.leeuwarden.nl/
doet het zelfs niet, upgraden dan misschien wel maar downgraden dan weer
niet ?

Hendrikklaas


Wat ik bedoel is dat een site met http:// (vrijwel) altijd zal werken.

https is geen upgrade, maar een beveiligde verbinding. Er is geen 
reden voor websites om verzoeken met http uit te schakelen, omdat het 
zeer makkelijk is om een verzoek direct door te schakelen naar https.


Bij bijvoorbeeld http://www.digid.nl word je automatisch doorgestuurd 
naar https://www.digid.nl.


Ik verwacht dan ook dat alleen zeer specifieke data- en 
beveiligings-gedreven sites geen http- maar wel een https-verbinding 
accepteren.


Als je dit gaat automatiseren, dan kan je uiteraard wel een scriptje 
maken dat van elke website de response bekijkt, zodat je kan zien of je 
op een http- of https-site aanlandt. Dat is gelijk een nuttige check om 
te zien of de site uberhaupt nog bestaat.


Tijmen

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

[OSM-talk-nl] Snelheid snelwegen

[Tijmen Stam]

Hoi,

Hoe gaan we in Nederland om met snelwegen waar een variabele snelheid geldt?
Bijvoorbeeld op de A1 tussen Hoevelaken en de A30 richting Enschede, of 
op de IJsselbrug. Hier is een spitsstrook, en staan snelheidsborden die 
kunnen wijzigen (zichtbaar aan de vertikale streepjes), en de snelheid 
die getoond wordt (100 of 120) is afhankelijk van het al dan niet open 
zijn van de spitsstrook.


Nu is dat vast op maxspeed=120 getagd, maar dat is feitelijk onjuist, 
maar er is geen vaste regel wanneer de spitsstroken open zijn en niet.


Ik bedoel NIET
- matrixborden boven de snelweg bij file
- die bordjes met 120 van 6-19h (dat doe je met maxspeed:conditional=120 
@ (06:00-19:00) )


Tijmen

P.S. Het is leuk om in osmand de snelheid van 100 naar 130 te zien 
verspringen als je rond 7 uur 's avonds op een weg met variabele 
snelheid van 6 tot 19:00 rijdt :-)


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

Re: [OSM-talk-nl] Maximum snelheid N270

[Tijmen Stam]

On 11/30/2014 03:21 PM, Pander OpenTaal wrote:

On 11/13/2014 06:29 PM, Maarten Deen wrote:

On 2014-11-13 17:11, Pander OpenTaal wrote:

Over Nuenen gesproken, de weg van Venray naar Nuenen heeft afwijkende
maximale snelheid in werkelijkheid t.o.v. wat OsmAnd meldt. Mocht iemand
dat willen aanpassen is dat welkom.


Welk gedeelte. Van Venray naar Helmond staat het op 80, dat zal wel
kloppen. Door Helmond is het 50, ik denk dat het alleen het stuk tussen
Helmond en Eindhoven is wat op plaatsen niet klopt. Daar is de laatste
tijd wel wat gewijzigd met de Brandevoort dreef en ik kom er ook niet
elke dag.
Als je er was, kun je aangeven wat precies niet klopt?


Er waren meer verschillende snelheden. Weet het helaas niet meer uit
mijn hoofd. Aangezien ik daar verder nooit kom en ik aandacht bij de weg
moest houden leek het me onverstandig om aantekeningen te maken tijdens
het rijden. Misschien kan iemand die daar regelmatig rijdt het herzien
of meer informatie verstrekken.


In Osmand zit een plugin Audio/Video Notes. Je krijgt dan een 
opnameknop te zien, en kan dan een geluidsopname (of video, of foto) 
maken. De opname komt te staan op de plek waar je de opname startte. Ik 
gebruik het erg veel om bijv. snelheden op snelwegen aan te geven.


Enige probleem is dat er (nog) geen JOSM-plugin is die die notes 
makkelijk in kan lezen. Wat ik er van gelezen heb is dat Java geen 
3gp-bestanden aan zou kunnen. Maar als ik tijd heb dan maak ik een 
scriptje die ze omzet naar een GPX-bestand + website, zodat je ze 
tenminste de positie makkelijk kan bepalen.


Tijmen


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