Re: [Talk-transit] NEW Proposed Feature
On 27.01.2011 22:06, Michael von Glasow wrote: You can find the proposal at: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Simplified_Public_Transport_Scheme Constructive feedback and suggestions are welcome and can be sent to the list or left on the proposal's discussion page. It seams to me, this proposal is a sipmlified version of my proposal with the following key features: Used well known tags for stops (also possible with mine). Stop area left away (also possible with mine). One relation per direction (identical to mine). Route master left away (also possible with mine). So I do not see a real benefit of this proposal... One thing that can not be represented: If a tram stop is also a light_rail stop. In Zurich we have several stops they are both at the same time. And one thing I'm not sure if it is a good idea: to redefine railway=halt/railway=tram_stop to beside the way. I personally would not try to redefine a well known tag. Teddych ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] NEW Proposed Feature
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 9:06 PM, Michael von Glasow mich...@vonglasow.com wrote: Following the call for a better proposal, Tiziano, Oscar and I have drafted up a simple proposal. It is based on how we have mapped the public transport networks in our cities (Padova, Ferrara and Milan), with some improvements that came up during this discussion. Our approach was to keep it simple, therefore we have deliberately not treated special cases. For now, we want to standardize the basics; once we have agreed on those, we can discuss special cases which might not be covered by the current proposal and draw up an amendment, to be decided separately. You can find the proposal at: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Simplified_Public_Transport_Scheme Constructive feedback and suggestions are welcome and can be sent to the list or left on the proposal's discussion page. Many thanks for this. 1) How do you envisage the mapping of loops (ie (say) six stops on one-way loop at one end of the route). I guess the two directions could be combined, or an arbitrary break made at some point round the loop. I think you need to suggest either one or the other or say that both are acceptable as long as they are ordered. 2) I think you need to define some options for tram stops (including what tags are on the single node on the track), and have a straw poll. This morning I'm tending towards using railway=platform areas/ways as stops (which is more consistent with existing tagging, and solves Teddy's problem with trams and light_rail using the same platform). Richard ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] NEW Proposed Feature
2011/1/28 Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 9:06 PM, Michael von Glasow mich...@vonglasow.com wrote: Following the call for a better proposal, Tiziano, Oscar and I have drafted up a simple proposal. It is based on how we have mapped the public transport networks in our cities (Padova, Ferrara and Milan), with some improvements that came up during this discussion. Our approach was to keep it simple, therefore we have deliberately not treated special cases. For now, we want to standardize the basics; once we have agreed on those, we can discuss special cases which might not be covered by the current proposal and draw up an amendment, to be decided separately. You can find the proposal at: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Simplified_Public_Transport_Scheme Constructive feedback and suggestions are welcome and can be sent to the list or left on the proposal's discussion page. Many thanks for this. 1) How do you envisage the mapping of loops (ie (say) six stops on one-way loop at one end of the route). I guess the two directions could be combined, or an arbitrary break made at some point round the loop. I think you need to suggest either one or the other or say that both are acceptable as long as they are ordered. You look at the schedule for that line and determine which one is considered the terminus by the PT company. Jo ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Bus/Tram/Metro paths export
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 19:09:38 +0100 From: Michael von Glasow mich...@vonglasow.com To: Public transport/transit/shared taxi related topics talk-transit@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-transit] Bus/Tram/Metro paths export Message-ID: 4d41b4e2.70...@vonglasow.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; Format=flowed Ciao Tiziano, I think I recently came across something which may be of interest to you - though I haven't yet tried it myself: http://svn.openstreetmap.org/applications/rendering/subway/ This script creates a network sketch (a crude form of the London tube map) from OSM data. To make it a tube map, you'd need to move points around using a vector graphics editor, the raw output seems to be much like the example you sent. Hi Michael, thanks for pointing out to that python script. I inserted my osm file to the same dir where i put subway.py and run it, but got this error: D:\goeuropa\osmpython.exe subway.py Traceback (most recent call last): File subway.py, line 24, in module class grapher(saxutils.DefaultHandler): AttributeError: 'module' object has no attribute 'DefaultHandler' Any idea what could be wrong ? ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] NEW Proposed Feature
Yes that's one option. I'm a bit reluctant to put in separate relations for each direction unless someone actually gives me a compelling reason to do so. I already have some ways with more than 20 relations, and I don't really want to double that number without good reason. http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.85106lon=4.75651zoom=17layers=M Lijn 7 uses Krijkelberg twice. Bus stop Sint-Kamillus is served by both directions. This can be mapped without ambiguity if there is one relation for each direction. http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.881607lon=4.715zoom=18layers=M Bus station in Leuven. It's perfectly clear where the buses will travel. Not so if both directions are in only one relation. http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.89623lon=4.47405zoom=17layers=M Brussels Airport http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.89648lon=4.4759zoom=17layers=M All buses serve the airport over a dedicated road. http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.86321lon=4.515999zoom=18layers=M In Sterrebeek line 616 makes an extra loop to serve a bus stop on Tramlaan. Sure it would be possible to program something to process a 1 route relation, but it would not be straightforward. Most importantly though, with one route relation per direction, it's a whole lot easier for the mappers to check that the relation is continuous. As far as routes go that have a shorter itinerary during the week, I wouldn't make an extra sets of relations for those. Simply put the longest road traveled in both relations. Jo ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
