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

[Jo]

I think what I'm trying to say is: there are many more bus routes (and
their variations) than train route relations to be mapped. If we insist
that it has to be:

stop_position
platform

so double tagging, I think I'll abandon and I'll understand that most
people will never start mapping public transport as it is effectively too
complicated.

I'm working on automating it, during a second GSoC of code project now, but
that is something that will always remain a burden. Duplication of tagging
and the apparent need for adding information about stops twice to the route
relations.

So my question remains: why can't we have NODES with all the details next
to the road. These nodes in the route relations and have the stop_position,
the platform way, the shelter, the waste_basket, the bench as extra items
that go into a stop_area relation, preferably one per direction of travel ?

I just spent another hour and 20 minutes converting 1 line from version 1
to version 2. The 'simple' way. It might have taken me 2 hours or more if
everything had needed to be mapped double.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_R9cQ73YZp8

Polyglot



2017-05-12 23:25 GMT+02:00 Tijmen Stam :

> On 12-05-17 20:12, Colin Smale wrote:
>
>> How about a step back for a second here... What is the stop_position
>> intended for? Who is it intended to help or inform? A bit of context
>> would help to rank the possibilities.
>>
>> I remain by my earlier standpoint that a stop_position is too much
>> detail for a route as it is too variable to be useful. Trains on the
>> same route will be longer or shorter, and will use different tracks and
>> different platforms from time to time. What stays constant when
>> considering the route is the station itself, so this would be the right
>> entity to make part of the route.
>>
>
> For railway routes, I see the stop_position as the technical point that
> ties together the track with (railway realm) to the platform (pedestrian
> realm). Not the actual exact point at which a train should stop.
>
> For bus routes it has the added bonus of being the (approximate) position
> of where the bus stops. I say approximate, because in the bus company I
> work at, the bus stop's position in our systems is averaged from the bus'
> GPS readings at the point the doors open. On some buses however, the GPS
> reader is over the driver, while at others, it's at the rear end. Something
> that can make a difference of 25 metres on our long double-bendy buses,
> which is quite a lot, as the "geofence" around a bus stop is by default 30
> metres, so a small misalignment of 5m combined with a different GPS
> position on the bus, with added GPS disturbance in built-up areas, might
> make the bus think it's not at the stop yet, making a difference in price
> for those who use contactless ticketing.
>
> 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: how are platforms and stops associated (rail question 2)

[Tijmen Stam]

On 12-05-17 20:12, Colin Smale wrote:

How about a step back for a second here... What is the stop_position
intended for? Who is it intended to help or inform? A bit of context
would help to rank the possibilities.

I remain by my earlier standpoint that a stop_position is too much
detail for a route as it is too variable to be useful. Trains on the
same route will be longer or shorter, and will use different tracks and
different platforms from time to time. What stays constant when
considering the route is the station itself, so this would be the right
entity to make part of the route.


For railway routes, I see the stop_position as the technical point that 
ties together the track with (railway realm) to the platform (pedestrian 
realm). Not the actual exact point at which a train should stop.


For bus routes it has the added bonus of being the (approximate) 
position of where the bus stops. I say approximate, because in the bus 
company I work at, the bus stop's position in our systems is averaged 
from the bus' GPS readings at the point the doors open. On some buses 
however, the GPS reader is over the driver, while at others, it's at the 
rear end. Something that can make a difference of 25 metres on our long 
double-bendy buses, which is quite a lot, as the "geofence" around a bus 
stop is by default 30 metres, so a small misalignment of 5m combined 
with a different GPS position on the bus, with added GPS disturbance in 
built-up areas, might make the bus think it's not at the stop yet, 
making a difference in price for those who use contactless ticketing.


Tijmen/IIVQ

___
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 12-05-17 00:14, Warin wrote:

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.


In the Netherlands, most stop_positions for trains were once imported 
automatically.
The railway company has two stop positions per track, one per direction, 
on simple stations.

But on a complex station like Amsterdam, a train on track 7 can stop at:
7 (the full platform length)
7a
7b
7c (this never happens, as the 7c part alone is too short to hold a 
train next to the platform, but as there is a switch between 7b and 7c 
train drivers need to know whether to stop before the switch or that 
they can proceed behind it.)

7ab
7bc
which would require 6 stop_positions per track. But that's IMHO too 
complicated for OSM, where I would suffice with one per "section" and 
just a random choice of 7a or 7b if a train needs to halt at 7ab.


How would one treat a bus or train route where the vehicle will stop at 
one of multiple tracks, undecided by direction? E.G. at each end of 
metro line 53, the train will choose an unoccupied track. Routing each 
combination results in 4 route_relations per directions, which seems 
overkill to me. What I sometimes do is add both tracks up to the 
branching point, but then you get a "route relation contains a 
gap"-warning. Is there a fix or better way for that?


Tijmen/IIVQ



___
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 12-05-17 00:06, Bjoern Hassler wrote:

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.


I didn't know that was a convention, but it is one I use too.

My convention of order for a route_relation:

stop_position 1
platform 1
stop_position 2
platform 2
:
stop_position N
platform N
way 1
way 2
way 3

For the stop_area, I try to keep a similar convention, but I see it as 
having no logical necessary, just to keep things neat:


public_transport/railway=station (if applicable)
stop_position 1
platform 1
:
stop_position N
platform N
[things without role, like shelters/bench/...]


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

Re: [Tagging] Ordering of routes, possible mapathon? Was: Re: rail routes: how are platforms and stops associated (rail question 2)

[Jo]

Hi Aun,

JOSM's validator warnings are just that, warnings. Some of them can be
safely ignored. Of course if the route_master relation doesn't really add
information, I'd say it's fine to omit it.

Here are some examples:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3614368/history
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3612781/history

The tags on both relations are quite different. I like to have both of
them, because I want to compare with data from the operators and then it's
good to have all of them "behave" in the same way. The route_master to
describe the line, the route relations to describe the itineraries for all
the variations.

We have a few more of those with only one route relation. For example the
one going in the other direction on our ring road or some school buses for
students that only go from the station to the campus on Sunday evening. On
Friday they have enough possibilities with the standard offered lines.


Polyglot

2017-05-12 20:51 GMT+02:00 Aun Johnsen :

> When is a route_master relation needed? For the area I am mapping, several
> of the routes are circular without any variations. That means I make 1
> relation for each route, but adding a route master, I get a alert that I am
> uploading relations with only one member. I can understand the use of
> route_master where going and return route have different relations, or
> routes with several variations (I have routes with up to 10 variations in
> my area, but few of the variations are mapped until now as I focus on main
> routes).
>
> Aun Johnsen
>
> > On May 12, 2017, at 15:38, tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote:
> >
> > Many lines on the London underground/overground/etc aren't well ordered,
> > there isn't a route master, etc etc. The node examples I provided are
> from
> > the Central line, that I've been working on.
>
>
> ___
> 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] [Imports] Importing fuel stations in UK and future similar imports

[Kevin Kenny]

On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Ilya Zverev  wrote:

> * "The general view seems to be against IDs like this": what has happened
> with the principle "any tags you like"? Did we saturate the key space and
> not accepting new keys anymore? Can I read that "general view" documented
> anywhere? The "ref:navads_shell" key is the only one that is not verifiable
> on the ground, and is clearly added so the further updates do not have to
> rely on matching.
>

That's a point on which many importers go badly astray. The problem is that
no foreign key in OSM, without matching and conflation, can be used for a
further import. A local mapper may modify the object in arbitrary ways
while leaving the foreign key in place, so you can't be sure when
re-importing that you're still dealing with the same object. Matching and
conflation are really the only safe way to keep reimports from stepping on
the hard work of local mappers.

Where such foreign keys are useful is in the case where they tie into
external databases that have information that is not mirrored in OSM. The
most obvious examples of this sort of thing are external website links,
Wikidata links, and Wikipedia article titles. In imports that I've run,
I've also retained other foreign-key information that identifies items in
databases that I import from. But I never, ever depend on that information
to give me a reliable match between OSM and the external database.

Importing data that will grow stale, languish and die for lack of
maintenance is not much of a benefit in the long run. Maintaining an import
is considerably more work than most first-time importers imagine. This does
not in itself say that imports are bad - I maintain a couple myself - but
to me, the assertion that maintaining a foreign key will aid in future
importing is a distinct "red flag" that will make me look at the
maintenance plan a lot more closely.

For what it's worth: there were mechanical edit scripts that helped
substantially with the workflow, but every change in the last round of
updates from
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/ke9tv-nysdec-lands/history#map=8/43.446/-74.192
was matched by geometry and examined by eyeball for changes to both
geometry and tagging. In some cases I bypassed edits because local mappers
had already made the relevant changes or had introduced substantitve
changes to the geometry that I could not verify from database comparisons.
This is a situation where Frederik and I have an uneasy truce. He's pretty
much against all imports, feeling that they damage the local community of
mappers. But he does recognize that at least I do imports of live data that
I use and intend to maintain, and that I respect local mappers and go to
fairly intensive lengths not to overwrite their work. There is no local
mapping community to speak of, nor is there the infrastructure to support
one. People expect the administrative boundaries of their public forests
and parks to be mapped - and for the moment, I don't see any other way of
mapping them. Frederik and I both agree that it's awkward at best to
maintain these data as an import - where we part company is that I see it
as infelicitous but necessary, and he sees it as entirely unacceptable. He
draws the line short of reverting the import, which is all that I ask of
him.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Ordering of routes, possible mapathon? Was: Re: rail routes: how are platforms and stops associated (rail question 2)

[Aun Johnsen]

When is a route_master relation needed? For the area I am mapping, several of 
the routes are circular without any variations. That means I make 1 relation 
for each route, but adding a route master, I get a alert that I am uploading 
relations with only one member. I can understand the use of route_master where 
going and return route have different relations, or routes with several 
variations (I have routes with up to 10 variations in my area, but few of the 
variations are mapped until now as I focus on main routes).

Aun Johnsen

> On May 12, 2017, at 15:38, tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote:
> 
> Many lines on the London underground/overground/etc aren't well ordered,
> there isn't a route master, etc etc. The node examples I provided are from
> the Central line, that I've been working on.


___
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)

[Jo]

My preference is to make the platform part of the route. A node tagged

public_transport=platform
railway=stop /highway=bus_stop (so they render on carto)
name=
ref=


This works particularly well for bus, tram, metro. It doesn't work all too
well for trains, as they often arrive at different platforms, depending on
the situation at the particular moment.

I like to consider the passenger perspective. I map the
public_transport=stop_position node on the highway or railway from the
perspective of the 'driver'. Those nodes don't need too much extra detail
though. What I basically use them for is to split the way on them for the
first and terminal stops of a line.

Would it be conceivable to come to a simplified way of mapping the route
relations (at least for buses, trams and metro) to only include those
public_transport=platform nodes?

I am converting many route relations from "public_transport:version=1" to
"public_transport:version=2". And it's a hassle, but still feasible.

The point where I'll throw in the towel is if every stop needs to be in
those route relations twice.

Some people add the stop_position nodes to the route relations and platform
ways. Often duplicating all the details on both those stop_position nodes
and the platform ways. From the passenger's perspective the stop_position
nodes are not where they are waiting. Still those are the primitives that
have coordinates that can easily be compared to data from the operators.

Having a node for the 'platform' (the pole with the flag on it in
actuality) or at least the place where people gather to wait with all the
details exactly once, solves many problems and makes checking and creating
the route relations feasible.

Or maybe we need to define yet another public_transport=pole/waiting_area
mappable only as a node for this purpose and include that in the route
relations? When I asked a few  years ago, I was told to use
public_transport=platform for this purpose and this works well, as long as
it is mapped as a node.

I'll be doing a workshop on public transport in Avignon the first Sunday of
June.

Polyglot

2017-05-12 20:12 GMT+02:00 Colin Smale :

> How about a step back for a second here... What is the stop_position
> intended for? Who is it intended to help or inform? A bit of context would
> help to rank the possibilities.
>
> I remain by my earlier standpoint that a stop_position is too much detail
> for a route as it is too variable to be useful. Trains on the same route
> will be longer or shorter, and will use different tracks and different
> platforms from time to time. What stays constant when considering the route
> is the station itself, so this would be the right entity to make part of
> the route.
>
> --colin
>
>
>
> On 2017-05-12 17:45, Bjoern Hassler wrote:
>
> Hi Michael,
>
> that's very helpful, thanks. I'll implement the ref as well as the
> ordering. I'll also add this to the English wiki pages where needed. I'll
> have a look at the DE page as well.
>
> Examples for nodes as requested. Stop_position at:
> - End of platform (middle of line) node 13328915
> - End of platform (end of line) node 20955753
> - Middle of platform node 1620401529
>
> (Disclaimer: I was just adding tags for 13328915, but I'll fix this
> shortly to be in the center of the platform. IMHO that is the convention
> that does make sense from a passengers perspective, but yes, it doesn't
> address Colin's comments about physical stop train positions from the
> drivers perspective.)
>
> Many thanks,
> Bjoern
>
>
> On 12 May 2017 at 15:48, Michael Reichert  wrote:
>
>> Hi Bjoern,
>>
>> Am 2017-05-10 um 18:59 schrieb Bjoern Hassler:
>> > 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?
>>
>> Stop positions can have a tag ref=* or local_ref=* giving the track
>> number which is signed on the platform. The platform has ref=*, too. The
>> ref tag of the platform often contains multiple numbers because many
>> platforms have to edges, i.e. ref=2;3 or even worse: ref=2a;2b;2;3a;3b;3
>> (if the track can be occupied by two trains behind each other at the
>> same time – very common at busy stations).
>>
>> If you don't want to parse ref=*/local_ref=* and route relations are
>> properly mapped, you can check which route relations reference a
>> platform. If a route relation contains both platforms and stop
>> position

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

[Colin Smale]

How about a step back for a second here... What is the stop_position
intended for? Who is it intended to help or inform? A bit of context
would help to rank the possibilities. 

I remain by my earlier standpoint that a stop_position is too much
detail for a route as it is too variable to be useful. Trains on the
same route will be longer or shorter, and will use different tracks and
different platforms from time to time. What stays constant when
considering the route is the station itself, so this would be the right
entity to make part of the route. 

--colin

On 2017-05-12 17:45, Bjoern Hassler wrote:

> Hi Michael, 
> 
> that's very helpful, thanks. I'll implement the ref as well as the ordering. 
> I'll also add this to the English wiki pages where needed. I'll have a look 
> at the DE page as well. 
> 
> Examples for nodes as requested. Stop_position at: - End of platform (middle 
> of line) node 13328915
> - End of platform (end of line) node 20955753 
> - Middle of platform node 1620401529 
> 
> (Disclaimer: I was just adding tags for 13328915, but I'll fix this shortly 
> to be in the center of the platform. IMHO that is the convention that does 
> make sense from a passengers perspective, but yes, it doesn't address Colin's 
> comments about physical stop train positions from the drivers perspective.) 
> 
> Many thanks, 
> Bjoern 
> 
> On 12 May 2017 at 15:48, Michael Reichert  wrote:
> 
>> Hi Bjoern,
>> 
>> Am 2017-05-10 um 18:59 schrieb Bjoern Hassler:
>>> 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?
>> 
>> Stop positions can have a tag ref=* or local_ref=* giving the track
>> number which is signed on the platform. The platform has ref=*, too. The
>> ref tag of the platform often contains multiple numbers because many
>> platforms have to edges, i.e. ref=2;3 or even worse: ref=2a;2b;2;3a;3b;3
>> (if the track can be occupied by two trains behind each other at the
>> same time - very common at busy stations).
>> 
>> If you don't want to parse ref=*/local_ref=* and route relations are
>> properly mapped, you can check which route relations reference a
>> platform. If a route relation contains both platforms and stop
>> positions, the next member of a relation after a stop position node is
>> should be the platform.
>> 
>> I think that both variants provide better results than simple snapping
>> on the next edge in your pedestrian routing graph (if platforms are in
>> your routing graph). There are cases in reality where a railway track
>> has platforms on both sides but you can or must leave the train only to
>> one direction.
>> 
>>> 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?
>> 
>> From my point of view this is wrong mapping. (In Germany mainly done by
>> user rayquaza) To give a correct answer, you should give some examples
>> (node IDs).
>> 
>> Best regards
>> 
>> Michael
>> 
>> --
>> Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt. (Mailinglisten
>> ausgenommen)
>> I prefer GPG encryption of emails. (does not apply on mailing lists)
>> 
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging [2]
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
 

Links:
--
[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/relation:route
[2] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Ordering of routes, possible mapathon? Was: Re: rail routes: how are platforms and stops associated (rail question 2)

[Jo]

Hi Bjoern,

I would definitely be interested in such a mapathon!

We could meet virtually on a channel like this one:
https://meet.jit.si/osmbe

Polyglot

2017-05-12 17:49 GMT+02:00 Bjoern Hassler :

> Hi Michael, hi all,
>
> Valid PTv2 route relations are ordered, i.e. the platform which follows
>> a stop position and is near the stop position always belongs to the stop
>> position.
>
>
> Many lines on the London underground/overground/etc aren't well ordered,
> there isn't a route master, etc etc. The node examples I provided are from
> the Central line, that I've been working on.
>
> As an idea: if others are interested, I'd be very happy to do a virtual
> mapathon of some kind. That could start with some kind of skill share on
> Overpass/JOSM/validation so that people get something out of it as well.
> Any takers?
>
> All the best,
> Bjoern
>
> P.S. I'm making notes on this as I go along here: http://bjohas.de/wiki/
> Maps/Transport_for_London. Plenty of overpass turbo code with interesting
> colour schemes.
>
>
> ___
> 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] Ordering of routes, possible mapathon? Was: Re: rail routes: how are platforms and stops associated (rail question 2)

[Bjoern Hassler]

Hi Michael, hi all,

Valid PTv2 route relations are ordered, i.e. the platform which follows
> a stop position and is near the stop position always belongs to the stop
> position.


Many lines on the London underground/overground/etc aren't well ordered,
there isn't a route master, etc etc. The node examples I provided are from
the Central line, that I've been working on.

As an idea: if others are interested, I'd be very happy to do a virtual
mapathon of some kind. That could start with some kind of skill share on
Overpass/JOSM/validation so that people get something out of it as well.
Any takers?

All the best,
Bjoern

P.S. I'm making notes on this as I go along here:
http://bjohas.de/wiki/Maps/Transport_for_London. Plenty of overpass turbo
code with interesting colour schemes.
___
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 Michael,

that's very helpful, thanks. I'll implement the ref as well as the
ordering. I'll also add this to the English wiki pages where needed. I'll
have a look at the DE page as well.

Examples for nodes as requested. Stop_position at:
- End of platform (middle of line) node 13328915
- End of platform (end of line) node 20955753
- Middle of platform node 1620401529

(Disclaimer: I was just adding tags for 13328915, but I'll fix this shortly
to be in the center of the platform. IMHO that is the convention that does
make sense from a passengers perspective, but yes, it doesn't address
Colin's comments about physical stop train positions from the drivers
perspective.)

Many thanks,
Bjoern


On 12 May 2017 at 15:48, Michael Reichert  wrote:

> Hi Bjoern,
>
> Am 2017-05-10 um 18:59 schrieb Bjoern Hassler:
> > 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?
>
> Stop positions can have a tag ref=* or local_ref=* giving the track
> number which is signed on the platform. The platform has ref=*, too. The
> ref tag of the platform often contains multiple numbers because many
> platforms have to edges, i.e. ref=2;3 or even worse: ref=2a;2b;2;3a;3b;3
> (if the track can be occupied by two trains behind each other at the
> same time – very common at busy stations).
>
> If you don't want to parse ref=*/local_ref=* and route relations are
> properly mapped, you can check which route relations reference a
> platform. If a route relation contains both platforms and stop
> positions, the next member of a relation after a stop position node is
> should be the platform.
>
> I think that both variants provide better results than simple snapping
> on the next edge in your pedestrian routing graph (if platforms are in
> your routing graph). There are cases in reality where a railway track
> has platforms on both sides but you can or must leave the train only to
> one direction.
>
> > 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?
>
> From my point of view this is wrong mapping. (In Germany mainly done by
> user rayquaza) To give a correct answer, you should give some examples
> (node IDs).
>
> Best regards
>
> Michael
>
> --
> Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt. (Mailinglisten
> ausgenommen)
> I prefer GPG encryption of emails. (does not apply on mailing lists)
>
>
>
> ___
> 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)

[Michael Reichert]

Hi Bjoern,

Am 2017-05-11 um 11:17 schrieb Bjoern Hassler:
> 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.)

If some trains of a line serve platform 4, some 5 and some 6, only map
the variant which is served most frequent on a working day or over a
week. In some countries the platform where a train stops is announced
only a few minutes before its arrival (e.g. in France and Czech Republic).

> 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.

Just map the location of the center of the shortest train which serves
this route. This will lead passengers always to the location on the
platform where they most probably can enter a train.

> 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.

Valid PTv2 route relations are ordered, i.e. the platform which follows
a stop position and is near the stop position always belongs to the stop
position.

Best regards

Michael

-- 
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: how are platforms and stops associated (rail question 2)

[Michael Reichert]

Hi Bjoern,

Am 2017-05-11 um 12:08 schrieb Bjoern Hassler:
> 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).

The wiki page Relation:route is an overview over all types of route
(hiking, cycling, ferries, trains, …). In addition, the public transport
part seems outdated. If you were able to read German, I would suggest
you to read DE:Public_Transport which describes the current status of
public transport mapping (its English counterpart is outdated, too).

> 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."

"stop:n" is totally outdated and was necessary at times when relations
were not ordered list (AFAIK OSM API v0.5).

The proposal page
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Public_Transport
is AFAIK the best English documentation.

Best regards

Michael


-- 
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: how are platforms and stops associated (rail question 2)

[Michael Reichert]

Hi Bjoern,

Am 2017-05-10 um 18:59 schrieb Bjoern Hassler:
> 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?

Stop positions can have a tag ref=* or local_ref=* giving the track
number which is signed on the platform. The platform has ref=*, too. The
ref tag of the platform often contains multiple numbers because many
platforms have to edges, i.e. ref=2;3 or even worse: ref=2a;2b;2;3a;3b;3
(if the track can be occupied by two trains behind each other at the
same time – very common at busy stations).

If you don't want to parse ref=*/local_ref=* and route relations are
properly mapped, you can check which route relations reference a
platform. If a route relation contains both platforms and stop
positions, the next member of a relation after a stop position node is
should be the platform.

I think that both variants provide better results than simple snapping
on the next edge in your pedestrian routing graph (if platforms are in
your routing graph). There are cases in reality where a railway track
has platforms on both sides but you can or must leave the train only to
one direction.

> 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?

From my point of view this is wrong mapping. (In Germany mainly done by
user rayquaza) To give a correct answer, you should give some examples
(node IDs).

Best regards

Michael

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Have I counted correctly that we are now

A) unanimously in favor of changing the suggestion from "depth" to
"length", or

B)  do some of you feel the need to keep "depth" for the shortest distance
from the surface to the deepest point (let's keep the question aside how
you would measure or estimate this) and "length" for the maximum length
along the adit? (It is a bit unfortunate that until now "depth" is defined
as "length" in the wiki).

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?

[Zecke]

When I started mapping adits I also felt that "length" would fit better 
than  "depth". However at that time length and depth were similar in usage.


Cheers,
Zecke


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

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

[Bjoern Hassler]

Of course - agreed!
B





On 12 May 2017 12:02, "Martin Koppenhoefer"  wrote:



sent from a phone

> On 12. May 2017, at 12:55, Bjoern Hassler  wrote:
>
> Not quite an answer, but the wiki says railway=stop for both freight and
passenger, but public_transport=stop_postion only for passengers.


yes, clearly the presence of public_transport tags indicates passengers
(also with the station value), but you can't tell whether there's also
freight, nor can you conclude from the absence of public_transport tags
that passengers can't use the station.

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] rail routes and stations (rail question 1)

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 12. May 2017, at 12:55, Bjoern Hassler  wrote:
> 
> Not quite an answer, but the wiki says railway=stop for both freight and 
> passenger, but public_transport=stop_postion only for passengers.


yes, clearly the presence of public_transport tags indicates passengers (also 
with the station value), but you can't tell whether there's also freight, nor 
can you conclude from the absence of public_transport tags that passengers 
can't use the station.

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

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

[Bjoern Hassler]

Not quite an answer, but the wiki says railway=stop for both freight and
passenger, but public_transport=stop_postion only for passengers.
Bjoern

On 12 May 2017 11:47, "Martin Koppenhoefer"  wrote:

> btw: the current railway=station tag definition doesn't say anything how
> to differentiate between freight stations and passenger stations and
> possibly combinations of both.
>
> Which tags are used?
>
> 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] rail routes and stations (rail question 1)

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

btw: the current railway=station tag definition doesn't say anything how to 
differentiate between freight stations and passenger stations and possibly 
combinations of both.

Which tags are used?

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?

[Warin]

+1 ...
It is like the length of a road .. roads twist and turn so the length is 
longer than the straight line distance.
The 'depth' of a tunnel is the straight line distance, not the distance 
you travel by going along it as it may twist and turn.


I am afraid 'English' words have many meanings! It may have been better 
to define vertical depth as a negative height value e.g.

height=-15 would be a 'depth' of 15 metres.. too late now.

On 12-May-17 06:02 PM, Colin Smale wrote:


Then I would suggest "length" is what you mean here, as it has no 
direct relation with the distance from the surface.



On 2017-05-12 09:54, Michal Fabík wrote:

On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 9:32 AM, Colin Smale > wrote:


B) the distance one would have to travel to reach the end of the adit

This. Any straight-line distance can be determined reasonably easily 
from a map, using its scale and a piece of string. A length of a 
twisty path, not so much. Granted, adits aren't usually _that_ 
twisty, but entering a mine is always a potentially hazardous 
undertaking and it's important to have as much useful information at 
hand as possible.


--
Michal Fabík



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

Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - (office=courier)"

[muzirian]

Is it okay to push this to voting again?

Regards


On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 2:08 PM, John Willis  wrote:

>
> On Apr 25, 2017, at 8:46 PM, Tobias Wrede  wrote:
>
> Am 25.04.2017 um 11:21 schrieb John Willis:
>
> If I search for a supermarket and you send me to a 7-11, you failed.
>
>
> I partly agree but when I tag Walmart or Trader Joe's as a supermarket's
> brand that carries a clear expectation towards the assortment of the store.
>
>
>
> I didn’t send it to the mailing list by accident: here is the message he
> is quoting from in it’s entirety
>
> Javbw
>
>
> ~
>
>
>
> On Apr 25, 2017, at 8:43 PM, Tobias Wrede  wrote:
>
> a supermarket's brand that carries a clear expectation towards the
> assortment of the store.
>
>
> This is true for all businesses in all counties. The regional assumption
> of what goods/services are available varies not only by "brand", but what
> each type of shop offers varies by culture - similar to what is available
> at a "drug store" and a "pharmacy". A drug store in the US often has a
> prescription pharmacy in the back.
> What is considered a "prescription" and what is OTC is similar to the
> regional variation with of what is offered at a supermarket or a post
> office, but at least there is a clear separation between OTC and
> prescription drugs in most countries.
>
> A Supermarket or department store o might also have most of what a drug
> store offers and a pharmacy (like target did). But in other cultures, for
> cultural or legal reasons, they might be separated, like here in Japan. So
> there is a need for both a "pharmacy" (chemist?) and a "drug store".
>
> Whereas in the US, we would need a way to tag the prescription pharmacy as
> an amenity offered by a drug store or a department store.
>
> I cannot think of a "pharmacy" shop that only sells perception medication
> and nothing else in the US - they are are (seemingly) always part of a
> larger drug store that sells chocolate and vitamins and OTC drugs and other
> not-drug stuff the Prescription drugs are just another thing they offer.
> But in Japan, the OTC stuff is separated from the prescription stuff, and a
> prescription shop is very tiny and sells (basically) only perceptions,
> nothing else _at all_.
>
> Trying to tie them together saying "they both sell medicines" and "we can
> separate them by brand" and "we have so many variations we need to tag them
> in a different manner" breaks the tagging system for all of them
> completely, and does little to address the need for the "amenity" tag
> needed to add it onto larger businesses that offer an entire business'
> service as a department in their store - like a garden center at DIY shop,
> a custom-order cake shop inside a supermarket, or package drop-off&pickup
> for a courier at a convenience store.
>
> Javbw.
>
> ___
> 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)

[John Willis]

It seems that I didn't realize that this was finalized, even though I was 
involved in the discussion.

Sorry for the misunderstanding! 

I'm really glad that the wiki has also been updated - I should have checked it 
first. 

I hope that the other "missing" landuses can be clarified or resolved in a 
similar manner. 

Javbw

> On May 12, 2017, at 3:58 PM, Michael Reichert  wrote:
> 
> 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)
> 
> ___
> 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]

Then I would suggest "length" is what you mean here, as it has no direct
relation with the distance from the surface.

On 2017-05-12 09:54, Michal Fabík wrote:

> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 9:32 AM, Colin Smale  wrote: 
> 
>> B) the distance one would have to travel to reach the end of the adit
> 
> This. Any straight-line distance can be determined reasonably easily from a 
> map, using its scale and a piece of string. A length of a twisty path, not so 
> much. Granted, adits aren't usually _that_ twisty, but entering a mine is 
> always a potentially hazardous undertaking and it's important to have as much 
> useful information at hand as possible. 
> -- 
> Michal Fabík 
> ___
> 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]

On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 9:32 AM, Colin Smale  wrote:
>
> B) the distance one would have to travel to reach the end of the adit
>

This. Any straight-line distance can be determined reasonably easily from a
map, using its scale and a piece of string. A length of a twisty path, not
so much. Granted, adits aren't usually _that_ twisty, but entering a mine
is always a potentially hazardous undertaking and it's important to have as
much useful information at hand as possible.

-- 
Michal Fabík
___
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]

The most confusing thing is when you use one term but mean another... 

Let's agree on the definition of what we mean here. Is it: 

A) the distance from the surface, measured perpendicular to the surface,
of the end of the adit 

*** this would probably have to be further refined to be the *shortest*
distance from *any* surface 

B) the distance one would have to travel to reach the end of the adit

or C) something else 

--colin 

On 2017-05-12 09:17, muzirian wrote:

> Using Depth isnt wrong but I think length is usable to, since adits are 
> usually part of features which have depth.so using length will be less 
> confusing?
> 
> Cheers 
> ___
> 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?

[muzirian]

Using Depth isnt wrong but I think length is usable to, since adits are
usually part of features which have depth.so using length will be less
confusing?

Cheers
___
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]

Yes, I'm aware of the second meaning, so please let me rephrase s/makes no
sense/would be confusing/. As adits are often connected to vertical shafts,
which will likely have their own "depth" tag, we could end up in a
situation with two connected objects (a shaft and an adit connecting it to
the surface) each having their own "depth" tag, where "depth" would have a
different meaning in each case. Besides, adits aren't always perfectly
horizontal, so users could misinterpret depth as the difference in
elevation of the adit's ends, i.e. the true vertical depth (TVD) from the
Wikipedia article that Volker Schmidt linked.
Regards,

-- 
Michal Fabík

On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 12:51 AM, Steve Doerr 
wrote:

> 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 <
> 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 
> listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
>
>
> 
>  Virus-free.
> www.avast.com
> 
> <#m_-595565059064911186_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging