Re: [OSM-talk-nl] maping bus routes, was Re: junction= roundabaout
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] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/NL-OV/Bus Regards, 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
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] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Public_Transport -- --- 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
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
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]http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Public_Transport 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
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 wo_wie...@gmx.net 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]http://wiki.openstreetmap.**org/wiki/Public_Transporthttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Public_Transport 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-nlhttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl ___ Talk-nl mailing list Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl
[OSM-talk-nl] maping bus routes, was Re: junction= roundabaout
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? 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? -- Mit freundlichen Gruessen Wolfgang Wienke ___ Talk-nl mailing list Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl
