Re: [Talk-transit] Defining service on railway=tram
Hi Jarek, I've now written a short proposal: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:usage%3Dirregular Please feel free to edit the wiki page directly. By the way, i found an example of an underground and of a light train diversion-only track. I'm still a bit unsure if these tracks really belong to the usage=* instead of the service=* key (it's still used for public transportation, not for industrial, military, test or tourist purposes) and if *=diversion wouldn't be clearer than =*irregular. Regards Markus ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Defining service on railway=tram
On Sun, 10 Mar 2019 at 22:49, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: > > Were you thinking of also integrating light rail in this, or keeping it > limited to trams for now? I think it is sensible to not restrict it to trams. While i'm not aware of irregular light rail or underground tracks, i can well imagine that they do exist. ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Defining service on railway=tram
On Sun, 10 Mar 2019 at 17:28, Markus wrote: > I still find service=siding to be inappropriate for irregular tracks > and would prefer a new tag, such as usage=irregular. I am willing to > prepare a proposal for it as soon as i find some time. No worries, I agree a dedicated tag with proper values would be great to have once a proposal makes its way through the process. Were you thinking of also integrating light rail in this, or keeping it limited to trams for now? Thanks, --Jarek ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Defining service on railway=tram
Hi Jarek, I still find service=siding to be inappropriate for irregular tracks and would prefer a new tag, such as usage=irregular. I am willing to prepare a proposal for it as soon as i find some time. Regards Markus ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Defining service on railway=tram
On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 at 11:33, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: > In tram systems, some of the tracks might not be used regularly for > passenger service. Some might be garage or work area tracks, and > others might be used only for detours or emergency service. > ... > Please see > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Jarek_Pi%C3%B3rkowski/Key:service > for the suggested addition and > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-January/042313.html > for more background including a survey of existing tagging. Hello, In the spirit of being bold and keeping things relatively uncomplicated, I have changed Key:service to add suggested interpretations of railway service values for tram tracks: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:service=prev=1820049 Please feel free to revert this change if you strongly disagree, and comment if you have ideas. Thanks, --Jarek ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Defining service on railway=tram
On Sun, 17 Feb 2019 at 13:43, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>
> The current four service values are based on physical characteristics of the
> track that are easily observed on the ground and unlikely to change.
>
> This proposal seems to overload that with an indication of how the track is
> used, and we already have a tag for that: usage. Granted, none of its
> existing values seem like a great fit, but if we're going to add new values,
> wouldn't that be the right place?
>
> I can't recall having seen a tram siding, but I have seen light rail sidings.
> Given the fuzzy line between the two, it seems unwise for any of their (many)
> common tags to have different meanings.
>
> Also, does this problem even need solving? With route relations, consumers
> can easily deduce that a given track is not normally used, so why have a
> redundant method of indicating the same thing? They're certainly more work to
> create and maintain, but they also provide more benefits, so that seems fair.
Hi Stephen,
The problem I was initially trying to solve initially was lack of
definition or standardization. Similar types of tram track
("non-revenue", "auxillary", "irregular" - as you wish to call them)
are being tagged inconsistently as service=spur, service=siding, or
service=yard, even within the same city, because a standard was never
suggested.
I wanted to tag some non-revenue track and there wasn't a
specification of how it should be tagged. As I wrote in the initial
message to tagging list, on-ground difference might be that standing
street-side, on regular track one might see a tram go by every 5
minutes, whereas on non-revenue trackage at least hours and possibly
days might go by between trams. Relations can indicate this, but
service tag was already used and rendered - just not used
consistently.
It is true that usage is a more correct word for this, but in looking
at several dozen cities I saw hardly any tram track currently tagged
with usage. If making a new tag/value, using usage might be a good
idea.
thanks,
--Jarek
___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Defining service on railway=tram
The current four service values are based on physical characteristics of the track that are easily observed on the ground and unlikely to change.This proposal seems to overload that with an indication of how the track is used, and we already have a tag for that: usage. Granted, none of its existing values seem like a great fit, but if we're going to add new values, wouldn't that be the right place?I can't recall having seen a tram siding, but I have seen light rail sidings. Given the fuzzy line between the two, it seems unwise for any of their (many) common tags to have different meanings.Also, does this problem even need solving? With route relations, consumers can easily deduce that a given track is not normally used, so why have a redundant method of indicating the same thing? They're certainly more work to create and maintain, but they also provide more benefits, so that seems fair.S___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Defining service on railway=tram
On Sun, 17 Feb 2019 at 10:55, Markus wrote:
> detour seems a bit unsuitable for turn tracks or connections because afaik it
> implies a longer route, but the tracks i have in mind are rather shortcuts.
> Maybe deviation doesn't have this meaning?
Right, I withdraw the detour suggestion. Irregular is still best so far I think.
> But don't you also want to include tracks that are only used for drives to
> the depot? If so, auxiliary/irregular/secondary seems like a better fit
> anyway.
Tracks that are only used for drives to depot would have service=yard
in my mind.
>> I chose "siding" because I didn't want to invent new tag value, to
>> avoid too big and slow of a change. But maybe we should do it, what do
>> you think?
>
> Imo if a tag or key doesn't fit it's better to invent a new. It would be nice
> though to hear opinions from other mappers.
>
> Besides, are you sure that siding tracks for trams similar to those for
> trains don't exist somewhere? If they exist and we use service=siding for
> auxiliary tracks, there won't be a distinction anymore (or a new tag would
> have to be invented for real tram siding tracks).
Honestly - I've looked through many of the systems and there isn't
much that functions like a real siding in railway sense. Wiki
describes railway siding as "These tracks are used by slower trains to
be overtaken or to let passengers enter/leave the train if the main
tracks do not have platforms." which doesn't really apply on tram
systems I've seen. The wiki even notes "These tracks might be hard to
differ from the main tracks in some cases." ... if unsure, we could
just leave the tracks with no service.
The closest thing that comes to mind for tram sidings are tracks for
parking or bypassing trams that aren't being used right now, usually
near route termini (e.g. https://osm.org/way/46140380,
https://osm.org/way/69049487). But I've tried to come up with a
description of these that wouldn't also include other tracks not used
in regular service, and was unable to do so. I am leaning towards
deciding it's not really worth drawing the distinction where it's
difficult to actually articulate one. I was able to explain
non-revenue/irregular, yard, and crossover; I don't know if I can
define more categories well.
Regarding input from other mappers, I have also gotten a response from
User:Tigerfell on the wiki at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:railway%3Dtram#service.3D.2A_for_tram
- maybe that gives you more ideas.
While we think some more, I might try to look into what the current
tagging is on light rail systems (in the Porto Metro sense, not the
Berlin S-Bahn sense...) to see if it makes sense to include them in a
proposal together with trams, what with trams and light rail forming a
kind of a continuum ("Service classes on street-crossing passenger
rail transport networks"?).
Thanks,
--Jarek
___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Defining service on railway=tram
On Sat, 16 Feb 2019, 20:20 Jarek Piórkowski I agree with you that "siding" is not a good description, but it > seemed the least-wrong one of the 4 railway values in use. "Spur" to > me sounds like something that branches off and ends (as illustrated > for railways). Meanwhile with service=siding I am looking for a > description for tracks that connect two stretches of regular tracks. > You're right, spur doesn't seem to fit either. I do like your suggestions - "irregular" should be clear enough, and I > like "auxillary" as well except I don't know if its meaning is > commonly-enough understood. "Minor" seems like it could be > misunderstood: if you have two lines, one of which runs more > frequently than the other, are the tracks of the less-frequent line > "minor"? Or how about service=detour? > I agree that minor could be misunderstood. detour seems a bit unsuitable for turn tracks or connections because afaik it implies a longer route, but the tracks i have in mind are rather shortcuts. Maybe deviation doesn't have this meaning? But don't you also want to include tracks that are only used for drives to the depot? If so, auxiliary/irregular/secondary seems like a better fit anyway. I chose "siding" because I didn't want to invent new tag value, to > avoid too big and slow of a change. But maybe we should do it, what do > you think? > Imo if a tag or key doesn't fit it's better to invent a new. It would be nice though to hear opinions from other mappers. Besides, are you sure that siding tracks for trams similar to those for trains don't exist somewhere? If they exist and we use service=siding for auxiliary tracks, there won't be a distinction anymore (or a new tag would have to be invented for real tram siding tracks). Or how about if we were recommend that of the current options, siding > should be used (to attempt to standardize what we have); and in > parallel launch a formal proposal process for adding more proper tram > service=irregular? > I wouldn't recommend this. It seems too confusing and i don't see a benefit. > ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Defining service on railway=tram
On Sat, 16 Feb 2019 at 11:39, Markus wrote: > > Hi Jarek, > > I'd welcome a tag for tram tracks that normally aren't used except for > diversions (in case of breakdowns, accidents, road/track works, events etc.) > or for drives to the depot. However, i'm unsure whether service=siding is a > good fit for these tracks. I'm not an expert in trams/trains, but wouldn't > service=spur fit better? Otherwise it might make sense to invent a new tag, > maybe service=irregular/auxillary/minor/secondary? Hi Markus, Thanks for your input. I agree with you that "siding" is not a good description, but it seemed the least-wrong one of the 4 railway values in use. "Spur" to me sounds like something that branches off and ends (as illustrated for railways). Meanwhile with service=siding I am looking for a description for tracks that connect two stretches of regular tracks. I do like your suggestions - "irregular" should be clear enough, and I like "auxillary" as well except I don't know if its meaning is commonly-enough understood. "Minor" seems like it could be misunderstood: if you have two lines, one of which runs more frequently than the other, are the tracks of the less-frequent line "minor"? Or how about service=detour? I chose "siding" because I didn't want to invent new tag value, to avoid too big and slow of a change. But maybe we should do it, what do you think? Existing values are used: - in editor presets, including iD and JOSM presets for tram tracks - both have "Spur", "Yard", "Siding", and "Crossover" in a dropdown for tram tracks, so matching the railway ones. Arguably it would be good to update those values for tram anyway, e.g. if we were to recommend that "spur" not be used on trams - in rendering: default layer hardcodes 3 current values for tram service (excluding crossover) - though if I'm understanding it right, it should be easy enough to change in https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/blob/dd096af4f566eb9c31e50ac447215f68e45b563f/project.mml#L514 - transport layer seems to render service=siding thinner, but presumably also updateable; openrailwaymap doesn't seem to render tram service tags in a special way so no problem there Or how about if we were recommend that of the current options, siding should be used (to attempt to standardize what we have); and in parallel launch a formal proposal process for adding more proper tram service=irregular? Thanks again, --Jarek ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Defining service on railway=tram
Hi Jarek, I'd welcome a tag for tram tracks that normally aren't used except for diversions (in case of breakdowns, accidents, road/track works, events etc.) or for drives to the depot. However, i'm unsure whether service=siding is a good fit for these tracks. I'm not an expert in trams/trains, but wouldn't service=spur fit better? Otherwise it might make sense to invent a new tag, maybe service=irregular/auxillary/minor/secondary? Regards Markus On Mon, 11 Feb 2019, 17:35 Jarek Piórkowski Hello, > > In tram systems, some of the tracks might not be used regularly for > passenger service. Some might be garage or work area tracks, and > others might be used only for detours or emergency service. > > The `service` key seems a natural match for tagging this, but its > values specified for railways aren't a close fit for trams (a railway > "yard" is somewhat different from a tram "yard", trams rarely have > "spurs", etc) and tram-specific values were never defined. I have > looked into various values currently used in tagging systems around > the world and would like to suggest tram-specific guidelines to add to > Key:service on wiki. > > Please see > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Jarek_Pi%C3%B3rkowski/Key:service > for the suggested addition and > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-January/042313.html > for more background including a survey of existing tagging. > > Any thoughts are welcome, in particular if someone has an opinion on > whether this warrants a formal proposal process. > > Thanks, > --Jarek > ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
[Talk-transit] Defining service on railway=tram
Hello, In tram systems, some of the tracks might not be used regularly for passenger service. Some might be garage or work area tracks, and others might be used only for detours or emergency service. The `service` key seems a natural match for tagging this, but its values specified for railways aren't a close fit for trams (a railway "yard" is somewhat different from a tram "yard", trams rarely have "spurs", etc) and tram-specific values were never defined. I have looked into various values currently used in tagging systems around the world and would like to suggest tram-specific guidelines to add to Key:service on wiki. Please see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Jarek_Pi%C3%B3rkowski/Key:service for the suggested addition and https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-January/042313.html for more background including a survey of existing tagging. Any thoughts are welcome, in particular if someone has an opinion on whether this warrants a formal proposal process. Thanks, --Jarek ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
