sent from a phone
> On 17. Aug 2020, at 05:51, Yves wrote:
>
> station:type is still available then.
sure, I wrote:
“ (I am not an expert for aerialway station types, but sooner or later someone
will come along who is, and even if they decide to use “station” for these
potential
station:type is still available then.
Yves
Le 17 août 2020 01:52:12 GMT+02:00, Martin Koppenhoefer
a écrit :
>
>
>sent from a phone
>
>> On 17. Aug 2020, at 00:25, Colin Smale wrote:
>>
>> Other attributes like the presence of the drive motors, ticket sales etc are
>> not determinants of
sent from a phone
> On 17. Aug 2020, at 00:25, Colin Smale wrote:
>
> Other attributes like the presence of the drive motors, ticket sales etc are
> not determinants of the "valley" vs "mountain" labels.
I have followed this discussion, my comment was that there may well be other
types of
On 2020-08-17 00:12, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> sent from a phone
>
>> On 16. Aug 2020, at 15:26, dktue wrote:
>
>> Ok, then I'm going to edit the wiki [1] now.
>>
>> [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:aerialway=station
>
> sorry for this late comment, but maybe it would be
sent from a phone
>> On 16. Aug 2020, at 15:26, dktue wrote:
> Ok, then I'm going to edit the wiki [1] now.
>
> [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:aerialway=station
>
sorry for this late comment, but maybe it would be better to use
station:position=top/mid (or middle) / bottom
sent from a phone
> On 16. Aug 2020, at 13:55, Colin Smale wrote:
>
> You can't have a mid terminal, by definition.
right, this is also something that always bothered me with our way of tagging
ferry stations.
Cheers Martin
___
Tagging
Ok, then I'm going to edit the wiki [1] now.
[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:aerialway=station
Am 16.08.2020 um 15:07 schrieb Yves:
I derived, not copied :-)
Go on with proposed top, mid & bottom, Dktue.
I tried to be more specific and imply a meaning that is beyond 'the
station
I derived, not copied :-)
Go on with proposed top, mid & bottom, Dktue.
I tried to be more specific and imply a meaning that is beyond 'the station at
the top of the aerialway' because us dealing with a geo database, it's a bit
clumsy to tag this, and I fear the proposal will attract some
So that would leave us with
aerialway:station={bottom,mid,top}?
Am 16.08.2020 um 13:53 schrieb Colin Smale:
Nope You can't have a mid terminal, by definition. And as
"terminal" is used with similar semantics to "station" here, if you
start with aerialway:station you don't need to
Nope You can't have a mid terminal, by definition. And as "terminal"
is used with similar semantics to "station" here, if you start with
aerialway:station you don't need to include "terminal" or "station" in
the value as well.
That web page doesn't refer at all to the "top station" or the
Am 15.08.2020 um 18:25 schrieb Yves:
Had a look at http://www.skilifts.org/old/glossary.htm, came up with :
Aerialway:station=top_terminal, mid_terminal, bottom_terminal
I'd be totally fine with that aswell.
___
Tagging mailing list
Had a look at http://www.skilifts.org/old/glossary.htm, came up with :
Aerialway:station=top_terminal, mid_terminal, bottom_terminal
Yves
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Interesting:
https://pistetopowder.com/the-new-schindlergratbahn-lift/
Quote:
Facts & Figures
Bottom station: 2,035 m
Middle station: 2,643 m
Mountain station: 2,579
OK, maybe 'head' is not ideal, but I think it's worth to find something else
than 'upper'
Yves
Le 15 août 2020 13:37:31
Am 15.08.2020 um 15:31 schrieb Colin Smale:
On 2020-08-15 15:15, dktue wrote:
The main thing is that people often refer to "Talstation" and
"Bergstation" but this information is not machine-readeable but
mostly encoded in the names of the stations. My goal ist to make this
machine-readeable
On 2020-08-15 15:15, dktue wrote:
> The main thing is that people often refer to "Talstation" and "Bergstation"
> but this information is not machine-readeable but mostly encoded in the names
> of the stations. My goal ist to make this machine-readeable because it almost
> all cases people can
The main thing is that people often refer to "Talstation" and
"Bergstation" but this information is not machine-readeable but mostly
encoded in the names of the stations. My goal ist to make this
machine-readeable because it almost all cases people can refer to it
even if they do not know the
It seems we can't even agree on what question to ask an "expert". @dktue
I think you started this discussion... What was your intention at the
time? Was it "how do we identify top/bottom stations on a cable car"? If
you ask an "expert" you might get an answer involving the project
numbers for the
Maybe (as always here) we are too few specialists on this list to find the
right values. I know of two forum funivie.org and remontées-mécaniques.net that
specialize in the field, but in Italian and French. Does anybody know of a
similar community, but English speaking?
Maybe we could have good
For me both schemes would be fine. I have no problem using "lower",
"upper" and "mid" even if the upper station is lower than some mid
stations. The definition from the wiki will then still explain how to
tag it and it's a rare case where the mapper probably will look for the
definition in the
Yes, I object to the specific values, as I (and others) said earlier.
The use of "base" and "head" is not intuitive and will lead to confusion
and errors amongst non-fluent English speakers. More basic words like
"top" and "bottom", or maybe "upper" and "lower", are preferable.
You can/should
To make in unambiguous, the definition would then be:
aerialway:station=base
for the station at an end of the aerialway with the lower altitude,
aerialway:station=head
for the station at the opposite end of the aerialway (hence with a
higher altitude) and
aerialway:station=mid
Hi,
it was mentioned, we have many aerialways in Tyrol and there are really
cases where the mid station is the one with the highest altitude.
I found an example ("Schindlergratbahn", base 2035 m, mid 2643 m , head
2579 m, see link ). So i think, the second scheme with base, mid, head
could
be
22 matches
Mail list logo
