Re: [Tagging] rail routes and stations (rail question 1)

[Michael Reichert]

Hi,

Am 2017-05-12 um 08:07 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
> this was closed as duplicate, so they are aware there is an issue.
> In the discussion the only argument (by Nakaner, a rail enthusiast)
> is that there are 3 different legally relevant areas for train
> stations in Germany, so the German railway community has decided
> not to map any of them but use a node instead. Seems logical to
> you?

There was a discussion about mapping station areas on the Tagging
mailing list in October.

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2016-October/030301.html

Best regards

Michael (Nakaner)


-- 
Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt.
(Mailinglisten ausgenommen)
I prefer GPG encryption of emails. (does not apply on mailing lists)



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] rail routes and stations (rail question 1)

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 12. May 2017, at 07:52, John Willis  wrote:
> 
> https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1457


this was closed as duplicate, so they are aware there is an issue. In the 
discussion the only argument (by Nakaner, a rail enthusiast) is that there are 
3 different legally relevant areas for train stations in Germany, so the German 
railway community has decided not to map any of them but use a node instead. 
Seems logical to you?

cheers,
Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] rail routes and stations (rail question 1)

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

On 12. May 2017, at 07:52, John Willis  wrote:

>> I would use an area for the station
> 
> 
> Unless something has changed in the last year or so, this is not possible 
> because no good tag for it exists (and it breaks -carto) 



it is defined for areas in the wiki and according to taginfo more than 10% of 
all stations are mapped as areas. The tag is railway=station.

If there are problems with a particular rendering style you should file a 
ticket with them. Don't tag for the renderer. Something as big as a train 
station clearly is better represented by a polygon than by a node.

Cheers,
Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] rail routes and stations (rail question 1)

[John Willis]

> On May 12, 2017, at 8:03 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote:
> 
> I would use an area for the station

Unless something has changed in the last year or so, this is not possible 
because no good tag for it exists (and it breaks -carto) 

My first trouble as a new mapper in 2013 was about this, and I brought it up 
again in 2015. 

https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1457

AFAIK The railway=station isn't treated as a landuse, so when placed on an area 
it acts as building=yes. 

You could use landuse=railway to denote the land, but that would be a landuse 
that doesn't differentiate between "some track" and "here is a station". 

Using railway=station as a landuse my be possible if we put building=no, but I 
assume that because -carton renderings assume it is a building, so will other 
data consumers and ignore the building=no tag. 

As with _so many_ non-business tags, there is no corresponding catch-all 
landuse they can go into (imo) to properly map the extent of their landuse, 
such a as fire stations, libraries, police stations, train stations, etc. 
mapping one place as an amenity= , another as a landuse=, another as a 
man_made=, and others with no area polygon - when _all_are just buildings 
sitting on a square of land is really odd, especially to a new mapper. iD hides 
some of this inconsistency, but it is still really bad. 

When there are more complex situations or micromapping, landuse=* and other 
area-based non-building tags is the basis for all of my mapping. 

Mapping a giant river needs waterway=river and =riverbank. Mapping a station 
needs building=station and landuse=public_transport or similar. 

Javbw ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] rail routes and stations (rail question 1)

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 11. May 2017, at 23:34, Tijmen Stam  wrote:
> 
> In my view, a fully mapped (simple) station should have a railway=station 
> node, and a public_transport=platform and public_transport=stop_postion per 
> platform/track.


I would use an area for the station, which would be much bigger than the 
building usually, containing the whole station, i.e. platforms, tracks and 
buildings, maybe a parking, etc.

cheers,
Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] change recommendation from "depth" to "length" for the adit length?

[Steve Doerr]

deep, adj.:

1.
a. Having great or considerable extension downward.
b. Having great or considerable extension inward from the surface or 
exterior, or backward from the front.


(Oxford English Dictionary)

Both senses are dated from the Anglo-Saxon period.

Steve

On 11/05/2017 09:54, Michal Fabík wrote:
Sounds reasonable to me. If it's horizontal or near-horizontal, depth 
makes no sense.


--
Michal Fabík

On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 10:22 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer 
mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>> wrote:


According to
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dadit
 the tag
"depth" should be used for the length of an adit (horizontal mine
entrance). According to wiki discussion, people seem to agree that
"length" is a better tag for this, as "depth" is used to indicate
how deep (vertically) something is.

Any complaints or agreeing voices for this change?

Cheers,
Martin



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] rail routes: how are platforms and stops associated (rail question 2)

[Warin]

On 12-May-17 07:45 AM, Tijmen Stam wrote:

On 10-05-17 18:59, Bjoern Hassler wrote:

Hello again,

In an  osm:relation:route
 (type=route,
route=train/...), you have both platforms and stop positions. How is a
particular platform associated with a stop that serves it?

E.g. for public transport routing, you'd walk (highway=footway) to a
platform (public_transport=platform), at which point you'd change to a
train stopping at a stop (public_transport=stop_position). How would the
routing algorithm know that the platform is associated with the stop?

Is there an existing mechanism or convention, e.g. a tag on the platform
that indicates the stop, or both tagged with the same name or similar?

Thanks!
Bjoern

PS I've noticed that sometimes the stop position is at the far end of a
platform (i.e. the two stop positions are at opposite ends of the
station). Maybe that's so that an association can be made?


Answering your grand question:

As I interpret the wiki, it is the route-relation that ties together 
the stop_position with the platform, by including them as a pair per 
"halt".


Imagine the "renderer" is a transit simulator that simulates a journey 
from your home to somewhere via "Green line" that stops on track 1 
(platform A), then the route relation of the green line contains both 
the stop_position (a node on track 1) and the platform (platform A).
It would then plot a walking route to platform A, then transfers you 
into the train (on track 1) and along the route.


I know of people who use a stop_area-relation for each 
stop_position/platform pair, which then could be used to tie 
stop_position and platform together, but that is not how I interpret 
the wiki.

I use one stop_area for a whole station.


Here there are different length trains - they usually stop at different 
positions on the platform so the middle of the train is at the middle of 
the platform. And there are short platforms where a full length train is 
too long for the platform - so people wanting to get off must be either 
in the front carriages, the middle carriages or the rear carriages in 
order to get off. (Why the different options? So that the train 
passengers don't all congregate in one portion of the train - different 
platforms have different positions for the train stop) Of course shorter 
length trains can stop with their carriages fully engaged with the 
platform.
I take the stop position from the train divers point of view - as that 
is what would be designated to be of practical use.


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] rail routes: how are platforms and stops associated (rail question 2)

[Bjoern Hassler]

Hi Tijmen,

many thanks. Yes, I understand the wiki that way too, i.e. suggest one
stop_area for the station and associated infrastructure.

Follow up question: In the relation you have
 .../stop/platform/stop/platform/stop/platform/... - would you agree with
the convention that the stop comes first, then the platform? It's of course
arbitrary, but e.g  in JOSM, the stop name would then come first, followed
by the platform (possibly unnamed), so it possibly makes more sense than
the other way round.

Bjoern

On 11 May 2017 at 22:45, Tijmen Stam  wrote:

> On 10-05-17 18:59, Bjoern Hassler wrote:
>
>> Hello again,
>>
>> In an  osm:relation:route
>>  (type=route,
>> route=train/...), you have both platforms and stop positions. How is a
>> particular platform associated with a stop that serves it?
>>
>> E.g. for public transport routing, you'd walk (highway=footway) to a
>> platform (public_transport=platform), at which point you'd change to a
>> train stopping at a stop (public_transport=stop_position). How would the
>> routing algorithm know that the platform is associated with the stop?
>>
>> Is there an existing mechanism or convention, e.g. a tag on the platform
>> that indicates the stop, or both tagged with the same name or similar?
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Bjoern
>>
>> PS I've noticed that sometimes the stop position is at the far end of a
>> platform (i.e. the two stop positions are at opposite ends of the
>> station). Maybe that's so that an association can be made?
>>
>
> Answering your grand question:
>
> As I interpret the wiki, it is the route-relation that ties together the
> stop_position with the platform, by including them as a pair per "halt".
>
> Imagine the "renderer" is a transit simulator that simulates a journey
> from your home to somewhere via "Green line" that stops on track 1
> (platform A), then the route relation of the green line contains both the
> stop_position (a node on track 1) and the platform (platform A).
> It would then plot a walking route to platform A, then transfers you into
> the train (on track 1) and along the route.
>
> I know of people who use a stop_area-relation for each
> stop_position/platform pair, which then could be used to tie stop_position
> and platform together, but that is not how I interpret the wiki.
> I use one stop_area for a whole station.
>
> Tijmen/IIVQ
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] rail routes and stations (rail question 1)

[Bjoern Hassler]

Hi Tijmen, hi Martin,

many thanks!

Bjoern

On 11 May 2017 at 22:34, Tijmen Stam  wrote:

> On 10-05-17 18:58, Bjoern Hassler wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I've got the following question for clarification. Suppose you have a
>> relation: osm:relation:route
>>  (type=route,
>> route=train/...), with nodes as stops.
>>
>> (1) The wiki says that the node in this relation ("as stop")
>> representing a stop would be tagged as osm:tag:railway=stop
>>  /
>> osm:tag:public_transport=stop_position
>> > >.
>> So far so good.
>>
>> (2) The wiki also says that alternatively, the node ("as stop")  could
>> be a station (railway=station).
>>
>> I assume that option (2) would be mainly for very small stations or
>> stations that have not been mapped? For larger stations, the station and
>> the stop position would be separate, and one would include the stop node
>> (1) in the relation, while the station is separate?
>>
>> The background to the question is that on the London underground, many
>> stops (i.e. nodes in route relations wth role "stop") are tagged as
>> station, see http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/oXF. Sometimes there are two
>> station tags as well (marking the stop for either direction).
>>
>> Do you agree that (e.g. where station buildings etc have been mapped),
>> the stop position should be tagged as (1), while the node tagged
>> railway=station should be merged into the relation for the station or
>> stop area?
>>
>
> I agree with you (and Martin).
>
> In my view, a fully mapped (simple) station should have a railway=station
> node, and a public_transport=platform and public_transport=stop_postion per
> platform/track.
>
> Then a stop_area relation which contains all stop_positions and platforms,
> and the railway=station node.
>
> The routes themselves contain only one stop_position/platform pair.
>
> Tijmen
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] rail routes: how are platforms and stops associated (rail question 2)

[Tijmen Stam]

On 10-05-17 18:59, Bjoern Hassler wrote:

Hello again,

In an  osm:relation:route
 (type=route,
route=train/...), you have both platforms and stop positions. How is a
particular platform associated with a stop that serves it?

E.g. for public transport routing, you'd walk (highway=footway) to a
platform (public_transport=platform), at which point you'd change to a
train stopping at a stop (public_transport=stop_position). How would the
routing algorithm know that the platform is associated with the stop?

Is there an existing mechanism or convention, e.g. a tag on the platform
that indicates the stop, or both tagged with the same name or similar?

Thanks!
Bjoern

PS I've noticed that sometimes the stop position is at the far end of a
platform (i.e. the two stop positions are at opposite ends of the
station). Maybe that's so that an association can be made?


Answering your grand question:

As I interpret the wiki, it is the route-relation that ties together the 
stop_position with the platform, by including them as a pair per "halt".


Imagine the "renderer" is a transit simulator that simulates a journey 
from your home to somewhere via "Green line" that stops on track 1 
(platform A), then the route relation of the green line contains both 
the stop_position (a node on track 1) and the platform (platform A).
It would then plot a walking route to platform A, then transfers you 
into the train (on track 1) and along the route.


I know of people who use a stop_area-relation for each 
stop_position/platform pair, which then could be used to tie 
stop_position and platform together, but that is not how I interpret the 
wiki.

I use one stop_area for a whole station.

Tijmen/IIVQ

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] rail routes and stations (rail question 1)

[Tijmen Stam]

On 10-05-17 18:58, Bjoern Hassler wrote:

Hi all,

I've got the following question for clarification. Suppose you have a
relation: osm:relation:route
 (type=route,
route=train/...), with nodes as stops.

(1) The wiki says that the node in this relation ("as stop")
representing a stop would be tagged as osm:tag:railway=stop
 / 
osm:tag:public_transport=stop_position
.
So far so good.

(2) The wiki also says that alternatively, the node ("as stop")  could
be a station (railway=station).

I assume that option (2) would be mainly for very small stations or
stations that have not been mapped? For larger stations, the station and
the stop position would be separate, and one would include the stop node
(1) in the relation, while the station is separate?

The background to the question is that on the London underground, many
stops (i.e. nodes in route relations wth role "stop") are tagged as
station, see http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/oXF. Sometimes there are two
station tags as well (marking the stop for either direction).

Do you agree that (e.g. where station buildings etc have been mapped),
the stop position should be tagged as (1), while the node tagged
railway=station should be merged into the relation for the station or
stop area?


I agree with you (and Martin).

In my view, a fully mapped (simple) station should have a 
railway=station node, and a public_transport=platform and 
public_transport=stop_postion per platform/track.


Then a stop_area relation which contains all stop_positions and 
platforms, and the railway=station node.


The routes themselves contain only one stop_position/platform pair.

Tijmen


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk-be] Missing oneway:bicycle=no / Wiki editing

[André Pirard]

On 2017-05-10 21:08, Thilo Haug OSM wrote:
>
> Hi André,
>
> according to this documentation,
> the tagging mailing list is the wrong platform to address this  :
> "*If you have ideas for the wiki, you can generally just do them, by
> editing the wiki! *
> If you need any assistance the *wikiteam* are here to help."
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Wiki#Wikiteam
>
Have you perchance seen the long and multiple discussions about
noexit=yes and similar subjects?
Yes, this place is exactly the one where to discuss that *tagging*
errors are made, what the wiki actually means, that it may be
misunderstood and that it should be clarified.

In this caseit seems clear to me that cycleway
=opposite* defines a
cycleway and some use it to tag a oneway exception.
And that oneway:bicycle
=no is the
access tag defining the oneway exception, that it is sometimes omitted
and that like misusing any access tag it produces routing (GPS) errors.
Some uncommented people openly laugh at OSM routing globally; in
contrast, I say "change this if you want better routing" and I'm the one
being criticized.
The horror comes when someone said that a wiki article (he didn't show
which) deprecates oneway:bicycle
=no and when the
very attractive map http://mijndev.openstreetmap.nl/%7Eligfietser/fiets/
introduces confusion.
I have no time to make corrections and improvements to every wiki topics
that need it and I hope that the persons who wrote them or acquaintances
will listen and do it.

For example, if I understood well, I'd recommend this or better:
cycleway
=opposite*indicates
the presence of a sort of cycleway called "cycle plug",  a very narrow
part of aoneway:bicycle
=no way that
runs alongside it for cyclists to ride contraflow on.
Just that and not a long explanation of contraflow, making believe that
it's the subject, with a seemingly casual mention of "cycle plug" in the
end where one may have stopped reading. And oneway:bicycle
=no is not
"normally" tagged with it but is the fundamental reason for choosing the
value "opposite" and hence mandatory.
And I suggest replacing other possible explanations of that subject
scattered in the wiki with a pointer to the one and only.

OSM and I thank you for your attention,
Cheers,

André.


> Unless some always ask for a proposal to edit /amend anything in the wiki.
> IMHO this leads to the result you mentioned :
> "Unfortunately, I'm very sorry to say, OSM is often much of a chaos."
> There seem to be very few people which first like to request a request
> form
> to be able to help the community to improve *.
>
> A "code of conduct"** would be helpful in which cases
> you may just add a minor specification, unfortunately I couldn't find
> such up to now.
>
> Cheers,
> Thilo
>
> * For those who don't know the concept of sarcasm :
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm
>
> ** Certainly this will also leave some (border) cases which are
> disputable,
> but at least there would be SOME agreed guideline.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_conduct
>
> Am 10.05.2017 um 15:10 schrieb André Pirard:
>> Hi,
>>
>> In this thread, I said, in agreement with others,
>> that oneway:bicycle
>> =no (click to
>> open that page) is the tag to be used *to tell routing
>> software**(GPS)* that *oneway*=yes
>> does not apply to
>> bicycles
>> that cycleway
>> =opposite* has
>> noting to do with routing and contraflow but indicates that *there is
>> a cycleway* that *happens* to be "opposite".
>>
>> Could you please make the wiki documentation more clear about that?
>> Because mappers often believe that cycleway=opposite means to
>> indicate bicycle contraflow oneway:bicycle=no.
>> Unfortunately, sometimes contradictory sentences about the same
>> concept are often spread all over the wiki.
>> Find them all!
>>
>> I have written this script
>> 
>> to find where many cycleway=opposite* exist without oneway:bicycle=no
>> and even without oneway=yes.
>>
>> Look at this street  to
>> which GRi added cycleway=opposite without oneway:bicycle=no, to which
>> JanFi added oneway:bicycle=no  probably after reading this thread
>> (thank you!) and from which I removed cycleway=opposi

Re: [Tagging] change recommendation from "depth" to "length" for the adit length?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2017-05-11 11:14 GMT+02:00 Colin Smale :

> In UK English (not sure about other dialects!) "depth" is often used in a
> horizontal sense. The depth of a cupboard or a shelf for example, or the
> depth of a hole you have drilled. The depth of an adit would make perfect
> sense to me - indicating how far it penetrates into the substrate. If it is
> straight, it is equal to the length; if there corners, the length may be
> greater than the depth.



in German it is the same ("Tiefe" is corresponding perfectly to "depth" for
dimensions, e.g. bathymetry, furniture, how deep into something, etc.).
Interesting, your interpretation of the term in contrast to length of the
adit, BUT: the wiki definition speaks about "length in meters", shouldn't
this be "depth in meters" then? Also, some clarifying words how to apply
the tag would be required if it was meant to be interpreted like this
(IMHO). And we should add a hint that "length" can be used for the "length
in meters", no?

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] rail routes: how are platforms and stops associated (rail question 2)

[Philip Barnes]

On Thursday, 11 May 2017, Bjoern Hassler wrote:
> HI Phil, hi Colin,
> 
> in the case of 4a/4b etc I would put in different stop points. If 4a always
> serves one route, then 4a would be added to the route relation. Maybe if 4a
> / 5a / 6a can all serve the same route, then I don't know what the solution
> is Maybe you just add a new stop point somewhere, and add a note? Or
> put 4a/5a/6a into a relation, and add the relation? (That would be against
> the spec at the moment I think... but could be a solution.)
> 
The problem is that the real world is not as simple as the London Underground, 
the big big issue is to define the routes. Really not easy as a route is a 
combination of start, destination and stations served. Something even a geek 
like me finds bewildering if I was to try to map rail routes.

Your average passenger just knows where a train is going, or at least where 
they are going.

Trains are regularly split/merged/reversed on routes. A train to a destination 
can be on one of many routes, some may only operate weekly despite appearing to 
most as a regular service. 

Phil (trigpoint)
-- 
Sent from my Jolla
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] rail routes: how are platforms and stops associated (rail question 2)

[Bjoern Hassler]

Hi Colin,

Colin: Actually, in the case you mentioned (short/long trains), I guess
> there could also be several stop points. I think that's not a problem. It's
> just you would only add one of those to the route relation. For the several
> stop points, ideally there would be a note, saying "front of train, 4
> carriages" or "front of train, 8 carriages", or maybe an additional tag of
> some kind.
>
>
>
> So which one would you choose to add to the route?
>

One of them? There doesn't seem to be guidance on this, and
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route#Members is vague. I
would have normally just added one stop position, and added that to the
relation. (Most London Underground stations I've looked at only have one
stop_position anyway.)


>
> Fundamentally I think the definition of a "route" is the list of places
> where a stop is made. A rail route links stations. If the 0900 train uses
> platform 1 and the 0930 uses platform 2 then that is not a sufficient
> distinction to say they are on different routes. So the detail of stop
> position is definitely going too far for the definition of a route.
>

Basically, I'm trying to understand
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route#Members. There's the
concept of station vs. stop_position, in case there are many stop_positions
in a station / stop_area. Sorry for London examples, but I'm trying to get
to grips with TFL. So e.g. King's Cross is a station/stop_area, but with
multiple stop_positions (for underground, busses, main line, etc).

In 'Members', there a node with role "stop"/"stop:n", described as follows
"A bus stop or train halt, on the route. The order of the members in the
relation should be identical to the order in the timetable. The number is
not needed to preserve the order of stops. It is only a guide to help
mappers finding missing or misplaced stops. You can use stop instead, if
you like."

My interpretation is that "bus stop or train halt" refers to a station or
otherwise to railway=stop/public_transport=stop_position. So it's possible
to add a station. The page suggests node, but I guess whatever is tagged as
station could be added there when there is no unique stop_position (e.g.
for mainline stations).

There is also a role for platform, so there is definitely scope for adding
platforms, but yes, that may not be possible.


>
> Veering a little off-topic, we have a bit of a challenge in the tagging of
> multiple tracks. There is no way at present to group multiple tracks into a
> single entity. If there is a quad track from A to B and they are mapped as
> individual tracks of equal status, then they all have to part of the route
> from A to B (assuming they are truly equivalent). It would be better from a
> data modelling perspective to have the *route* use a single line ("logical
> track") between the stations.
>

I think what's in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route#Members,
role "route", doesn't conflict with this. You could add all tracks 1,2,3,4
into the route relationship (with empty role or role=route). I think they
would not be separate route relations. My interpretation of the spec would
be that you have a route relation with
 1
 2
 3
 5
stop A
stop B

and one with
 1
 2
 3
 5
stop B
stop A

Both relations would be combined into a route_master relationship.

Let me know if you see it differently.
Bjoern



> --colin
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] rail routes: how are platforms and stops associated (rail question 2)

[Colin Smale]

Hi Bjoern, 

On 2017-05-11 11:17, Bjoern Hassler wrote:

> HI Phil, hi Colin, 
> 
> Colin: Actually, in the case you mentioned (short/long trains), I guess there 
> could also be several stop points. I think that's not a problem. It's just 
> you would only add one of those to the route relation. For the several stop 
> points, ideally there would be a note, saying "front of train, 4 carriages" 
> or "front of train, 8 carriages", or maybe an additional tag of some kind.

So which one would you choose to add to the route? 

Fundamentally I think the definition of a "route" is the list of places
where a stop is made. A rail route links stations. If the 0900 train
uses platform 1 and the 0930 uses platform 2 then that is not a
sufficient distinction to say they are on different routes. So the
detail of stop position is definitely going too far for the definition
of a route. 

Veering a little off-topic, we have a bit of a challenge in the tagging
of multiple tracks. There is no way at present to group multiple tracks
into a single entity. If there is a quad track from A to B and they are
mapped as individual tracks of equal status, then they all have to part
of the route from A to B (assuming they are truly equivalent). It would
be better from a data modelling perspective to have the *route* use a
single line ("logical track") between the stations. 

--colin___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] rail routes: how are platforms and stops associated (rail question 2)

[Bjoern Hassler]

HI Phil, hi Colin,

in the case of 4a/4b etc I would put in different stop points. If 4a always
serves one route, then 4a would be added to the route relation. Maybe if 4a
/ 5a / 6a can all serve the same route, then I don't know what the solution
is Maybe you just add a new stop point somewhere, and add a note? Or
put 4a/5a/6a into a relation, and add the relation? (That would be against
the spec at the moment I think... but could be a solution.)

Colin: Actually, in the case you mentioned (short/long trains), I guess
there could also be several stop points. I think that's not a problem. It's
just you would only add one of those to the route relation. For the several
stop points, ideally there would be a note, saying "front of train, 4
carriages" or "front of train, 8 carriages", or maybe an additional tag of
some kind.

To come back to the original question: If an association between a stop
point and platform exists (as it does on the underground), is there a way
of indicating this through tagging? What are your views?

There are a few possibilities, e.g. both the stop point and the platform
could share the same name (kinda fragile though). They could be ordered in
the relation so that the stopping_position comes first, followed by the
platform (this would be a new feature, but e.g. a tag could be added to the
route relation where this ordering has taken place). Also, the roles in the
route are stop/platform, but also suggest stop:n / platform:n. It's not to
order them, and it doesn't look like this is to associate stop/platform,
but it could be used.

What do you think?

Bjoern

On 10 May 2017 at 18:57, Philip Barnes  wrote:

> On Wed, 2017-05-10 at 18:42 +0100, Bjoern Hassler wrote:
>
> But yes - what do you do if a rain route goes through a station, where the
> rails temporarily split into several tracks? Where is the stop position for
> that route? Clearly in that case stop_positions on the route cannot be
> associated with platforms in the station, and full routing is not possible.
>
>
> However, I would say that each platform should still have a stop_position
> (on the rails) - even though those stop_positions might not be in route
> relations...
>
> And different stop positions for each direction? In larger stations
> platforms serve trains in different directions. And not forgetting
> platforms can be split, Shrewsbury uses 4a/4b/7a/7b and its quite possible
> to have trains in 4a/4b at the same time that will leave in different
> directions. That is having arrived as a single train into platform 4
>
> Phil (trigpoint)
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] change recommendation from "depth" to "length" for the adit length?

[Colin Smale]

In UK English (not sure about other dialects!) "depth" is often used in
a horizontal sense. The depth of a cupboard or a shelf for example, or
the depth of a hole you have drilled. The depth of an adit would make
perfect sense to me - indicating how far it penetrates into the
substrate. If it is straight, it is equal to the length; if there
corners, the length may be greater than the depth.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/depth 

--colin 

On 2017-05-11 10:54, Michal Fabík wrote:

> Sounds reasonable to me. If it's horizontal or near-horizontal, depth makes 
> no sense.
> 
> -- 
> Michal Fabík
> 
> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 10:22 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer 
>  wrote:
> 
>> According to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dadit [1] the 
>> tag "depth" should be used for the length of an adit (horizontal mine 
>> entrance). According to wiki discussion, people seem to agree that "length" 
>> is a better tag for this, as "depth" is used to indicate how deep 
>> (vertically) something is.
>> 
>> Any complaints or agreeing voices for this change? 
>> Cheers, Martin
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
 

Links:
--
[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dadit___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] change recommendation from "depth" to "length" for the adit length?

[Volker Schmidt]

Is there anyone from the mining industry?
I looked a this Wikpedia article [1] and ge confused.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_in_a_well

On 11 May 2017 at 10:54, Michal Fabík  wrote:

> Sounds reasonable to me. If it's horizontal or near-horizontal, depth
> makes no sense.
>
> --
> Michal Fabík
>
> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 10:22 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer <
> dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> According to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dadit the
>> tag "depth" should be used for the length of an adit (horizontal mine
>> entrance). According to wiki discussion, people seem to agree that "length"
>> is a better tag for this, as "depth" is used to indicate how deep
>> (vertically) something is.
>>
>> Any complaints or agreeing voices for this change?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Martin
>>
>>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] change recommendation from "depth" to "length" for the adit length?

[Michal Fabík]

Sounds reasonable to me. If it's horizontal or near-horizontal, depth makes
no sense.

-- 
Michal Fabík

On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 10:22 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer <
dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote:

> According to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dadit the
> tag "depth" should be used for the length of an adit (horizontal mine
> entrance). According to wiki discussion, people seem to agree that "length"
> is a better tag for this, as "depth" is used to indicate how deep
> (vertically) something is.
>
> Any complaints or agreeing voices for this change?
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] change recommendation from "depth" to "length" for the adit length?

[muzirian]

> "length" is a better tag for this, as "depth" is used to indicate how
deep (vertically) something is.
+1

cheers

On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 1:52 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:

> According to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dadit the
> tag "depth" should be used for the length of an adit (horizontal mine
> entrance). According to wiki discussion, people seem to agree that "length"
> is a better tag for this, as "depth" is used to indicate how deep
> (vertically) something is.
>
> Any complaints or agreeing voices for this change?
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] change recommendation from "depth" to "length" for the adit length?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

According to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dadit the
tag "depth" should be used for the length of an adit (horizontal mine
entrance). According to wiki discussion, people seem to agree that "length"
is a better tag for this, as "depth" is used to indicate how deep
(vertically) something is.

Any complaints or agreeing voices for this change?

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging