[OSM-talk-nl] Bing-update in Duitsland

[Frank Steggink]

Hoi,

Voor wie het nog niet gemerkt heeft: de afgelopen week hebben onze 
oosterburen een update gekregen van de Bing-luchtfoto's. Tot voor kort 
werden grote delen van Duitsland alleen door Landsat bestreken, maar 
gelukkig is dat nu veranderd. Dus goed nieuws voor iedereen die wel eens 
over de grens aan het werk is in OSM. :)


Groeten,

Frank

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

Re: [OSM-talk-nl] maping bus routes, was Re: junction= roundabaout

[Jo]

What already works is giving the stop members a role 'platform', instead of
'stop'. The tags on the stop nodes themselves cannot be converted to
public_transport=platform though, so you have to keep working with
highway=bus_stop and railway=tram_stop. Or use both, but that seems like a
waste of space to me.

The ways in the relation don't need a role. It's just a waste of time to
add them and keep them correct. If there is one long line from the first
stop to the terminus, it's  easy to see whether it's continuous in JOSM's
relation editor, with or without roles.

The stops get added, preferably in order, as the last relation members.

Roundabouts sort of also work in this continuity (they get a special
symbol), but I also prefer to split them, when routes go over them (even
when I'm in Belgium, not Holland). The result is cleaner and completely
unambiguous.

Polyglot


2012/11/23 Wolfgang Wienke 

> Am 23.11.2012 14:29, schrieb Cartinus:
>
>  On 11/23/2012 12:44 PM, Maarten Deen wrote:
>>
>>> On 2012-11-22 21:14, Wolfgang Wienke wrote:
>>>
 Do you accept OXOMOA scheme?

>>>
>>> This is the first that I ever hear from that scheme.
>>>
>>
>> Please ignore the original oxomoa scheme when tagging bus routes. There
>> is a reason the scheme sits in someones private wiki-space: It was the
>> first step in a long process that ended here [1].
>>
>> Significant parts of the oxomoa scheme ended up in the final proposal,
>> but parts of it didn't (like the incredibly insane type=line in stead of
>> type=route).
>>
>>
>> On 11/23/2012 12:44 PM, Maarten Deen wrote:
>>
>>> I don't know how it is done outside Limburg, but in Limburg the
>>> relations are IIRC not grouped. I'm also not entirely sure how we
>>> should
>>> group them. In Germany there is a strong grouping in the
>>> Verkehrsverbünde. We don't have that. We do have concessionareas, but
>>> these can be large (Limburg is one concession, run by Veolia) and can
>>> overlap (in Amsterdam, you'll find busses from different concessions).
>>>
>>
>> In the central part of The Netherlands the name of the concession used
>> to be put in the network tag of the relation. I just noticed someone
>> didn't understand "relations are not categories" and created a
>> type=public_transport + public_transport=network relation to group the
>> lines of the concession "BRU stad".
>>
>> Overlapping concessions are not a problem for either the network tag or
>> the network relation, as neither relies on a contiguous geographic area.
>>
>>
>> [1]
>> >
>>
>>  Ok, in future i will use this, mapping separate routes for both
> directions, usung the public_tranport tags.
>
>
> --
>Mit freundlichen Gruessen
>
>  Wolfgang Wienke
>
> __**_
> Talk-nl mailing list
> Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-nl
>
___
Talk-nl mailing list
Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl

Re: [OSM-talk-nl] maping bus routes, was Re: junction= roundabaout

[Wolfgang Wienke]

Am 23.11.2012 14:29, schrieb Cartinus:

On 11/23/2012 12:44 PM, Maarten Deen wrote:

On 2012-11-22 21:14, Wolfgang Wienke wrote:

Do you accept OXOMOA scheme?


This is the first that I ever hear from that scheme.


Please ignore the original oxomoa scheme when tagging bus routes. There
is a reason the scheme sits in someones private wiki-space: It was the
first step in a long process that ended here [1].

Significant parts of the oxomoa scheme ended up in the final proposal,
but parts of it didn't (like the incredibly insane type=line in stead of
type=route).


On 11/23/2012 12:44 PM, Maarten Deen wrote:

I don't know how it is done outside Limburg, but in Limburg the
relations are IIRC not grouped. I'm also not entirely sure how we
should
group them. In Germany there is a strong grouping in the
Verkehrsverbünde. We don't have that. We do have concessionareas, but
these can be large (Limburg is one concession, run by Veolia) and can
overlap (in Amsterdam, you'll find busses from different concessions).


In the central part of The Netherlands the name of the concession used
to be put in the network tag of the relation. I just noticed someone
didn't understand "relations are not categories" and created a
type=public_transport + public_transport=network relation to group the
lines of the concession "BRU stad".

Overlapping concessions are not a problem for either the network tag or
the network relation, as neither relies on a contiguous geographic area.


[1]

Ok, in future i will use this, mapping separate routes for both 
directions, usung the public_tranport tags.


--
   Mit freundlichen Gruessen

 Wolfgang Wienke

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

Re: [OSM-talk-nl] maping bus routes, was Re: junction= roundabaout

[Maarten Deen]

On 2012-11-23 14:29, Cartinus wrote:

On 11/23/2012 12:44 PM, Maarten Deen wrote:

On 2012-11-22 21:14, Wolfgang Wienke wrote:

Do you accept OXOMOA scheme?


This is the first that I ever hear from that scheme.


Please ignore the original oxomoa scheme when tagging bus routes. 
There

is a reason the scheme sits in someones private wiki-space: It was the
first step in a long process that ended here [1].

Significant parts of the oxomoa scheme ended up in the final proposal,
but parts of it didn't (like the incredibly insane type=line in stead 
of

type=route).


On 11/23/2012 12:44 PM, Maarten Deen wrote:

I don't know how it is done outside Limburg, but in Limburg the
relations are IIRC not grouped. I'm also not entirely sure how we
should
group them. In Germany there is a strong grouping in the
Verkehrsverbünde. We don't have that. We do have concessionareas, but
these can be large (Limburg is one concession, run by Veolia) and can
overlap (in Amsterdam, you'll find busses from different 
concessions).


In the central part of The Netherlands the name of the concession used
to be put in the network tag of the relation. I just noticed someone
didn't understand "relations are not categories" and created a
type=public_transport + public_transport=network relation to group the
lines of the concession "BRU stad".


I read from Wolgang's comments that this is also done for the AVV 
buslines. And it is common practice for walking and cycling networks.

Or is this a different kind of grouping relation?

Maarten


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

Re: [OSM-talk-nl] maping bus routes, was Re: junction= roundabaout

[Cartinus]

On 11/23/2012 12:44 PM, Maarten Deen wrote:
> On 2012-11-22 21:14, Wolfgang Wienke wrote:
>> Do you accept OXOMOA scheme?
> 
> This is the first that I ever hear from that scheme.

Please ignore the original oxomoa scheme when tagging bus routes. There
is a reason the scheme sits in someones private wiki-space: It was the
first step in a long process that ended here [1].

Significant parts of the oxomoa scheme ended up in the final proposal,
but parts of it didn't (like the incredibly insane type=line in stead of
type=route).


On 11/23/2012 12:44 PM, Maarten Deen wrote:
> I don't know how it is done outside Limburg, but in Limburg the
> relations are IIRC not grouped. I'm also not entirely sure how we
> should
> group them. In Germany there is a strong grouping in the
> Verkehrsverbünde. We don't have that. We do have concessionareas, but
> these can be large (Limburg is one concession, run by Veolia) and can
> overlap (in Amsterdam, you'll find busses from different concessions).

In the central part of The Netherlands the name of the concession used
to be put in the network tag of the relation. I just noticed someone
didn't understand "relations are not categories" and created a
type=public_transport + public_transport=network relation to group the
lines of the concession "BRU stad".

Overlapping concessions are not a problem for either the network tag or
the network relation, as neither relies on a contiguous geographic area.


[1] 

-- 
---
m.v.g.,
Cartinus

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

Re: [OSM-talk-nl] maping bus routes, was Re: junction= roundabaout

[Maarten Deen]

On 2012-11-22 21:14, Wolfgang Wienke wrote:

Hi
Am 22.11.2012 20:20, schrieb Maarten Deen:

On 2012-11-22 12:23, Robert Elsenaar wrote:

At the other way, as we do it in Holland every roundabout should be
tags in a forward and backward way in relations when the roundabout 
is

split up. One of the reasons relation get polluted.

But your drawing argument is a illegal one. We do not map for the
renderers. And all relations are two sided so always the whole
roundabout is used.


Not all relations are two sided. A lot of bus relations are from A 
to B

with a second relation from B to A.


Is this standard for newer mappings in Netherlands?


There is no standard. I even observed someone merging bus stops for 
different directions into one "because it looks better on the map".



In this case we (operator AVV in Aachen and other citys) include this
to a collecting relation for the line. In Germany a bus more ofter
drives different ways. Because of this there are often 5-6 such
relations in the collecting relation. This collecting relation is
included in a relation with all lines of an operator.

Do you accept OXOMOA scheme?


This is the first that I ever hear from that scheme. But after reading 
it: how do split roundabouts and different relations for forward and 
backward not fit in this model?


I had made a start documenting Dutch busroutes [1], but I also see that 
I'm more or less the only one using it.
I don't know how it is done outside Limburg, but in Limburg the 
relations are IIRC not grouped. I'm also not entirely sure how we should 
group them. In Germany there is a strong grouping in the 
Verkehrsverbünde. We don't have that. We do have concessionareas, but 
these can be large (Limburg is one concession, run by Veolia) and can 
overlap (in Amsterdam, you'll find busses from different concessions).
Currently the logical division in Limburg is North/Middle, South, 
Parkstad, citylines Venlo, citylines Roermond, citylines Maastricht. 
This is a historical division based on buscompanies starting 60 years 
ago.


[1] 

Regards,
Maarten


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