Maybe you can find middle ground in highway=tertiary? highway=service is a
possibility, but I'd usually use it in bus stations or on stretches that
are exclusively used by buses, that don't even have sidewalks for example.
On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 5:41 PM Jmapb wrote:
> On 12/9/2020
I couldn't resist looking them up.
This is a very long one and there is even an operator in it:
Most are the length of the escalators they are adjacent to.
On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 2:19 PM Guillaume Chauvat
> My apologies if
> +1, same here for wild boars. “animal path” does not provide sufficient
> information what kind of object it is, because these paths are quite
> different depending on the animals. The mentioned cow paths are probably
> always suitable for humans, while others may not.
> your feet may sink
They do NOT mean the same thing. How they differ has already been mentioned
2 or 3 times in this thread.
On Tue, Oct 20, 2020, 06:59 Robert Delmenico wrote:
> Essentially though, they mean the same thing:
> man_made=bridge is for areas
> bridge=yes is for ways
> Both refer to to say there is
Bridge=yes is used as a complementary tag on highway and railway objects.
I was thinking of construction=bridge, but that already has another meaning
in OSM context.
I really don't like artificial as a tag. Maybe constructed_by_people...
Can't say that I like that either.
On Tue, Oct
It would be best to first consider the consequences of such a change. Weigh
the benefits against what we lose in time (humanhours?) and
resources/energy. And then there is still the point that many objects will
get new timestamps for a change that's not really a change.
Anyway, artificial sounds
Are they really people who see the tag man_made and go:
Oh, women didn't contribute to this! The tag says so...
Isn't it obvious that man in this case stands for its original meaning:
Mensch, ser humano, etc?
Changing it in the database is trivially easy. Letting everyone who uses
OSM data know
House numbers are also exhaustively complete in The Netherlands.
On Sat, Sep 5, 2020, 22:46 Niels Elgaard Larsen wrote:
> Martin Koppenhoefer:
> > sent from a phone
> >> On 5. Sep 2020, at 16:43, ben.ki...@mail.de wrote:
night. By using separate route relations, it becomes possible to add
opening hours and a frequency/period on them.
On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 8:52 AM Peter Elderson wrote:
> 'transport' role, 'transportation' role ... is this in use and
> documented somewhere?
> In bi
as members of a bicycle
route relation, which is what would happen in the case of the specialised
bus that takes bicycles through a tunnel.
The alternative is that we change the validator to disregard ways with the
role transport. Sure that would work as well.
On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 8:16 AM
I know that it's possible to look at the type of the child route relation,
but I don't think it hurts to be explicit about it in the role.
Regarding the 'complex' bicycle relations. I want to use superroutes for
other purposes as well.
On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 7:53 PM Peter Elderson wrote
I started a proposal on the wiki:
It will probably need to be moved to the proposal name space, but we can
work on it over there before putting it up for a vote.
On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 3:09 PM Francesco Ansanelli
the stamina for it. But anyone can do it, so if you feel
like it, go ahead.
On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 12:39 PM Jo wrote:
> I uploaded my way to solve this:
> On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 12:03 PM Jo wrote:
I uploaded my way to solve this:
On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 12:03 PM Jo wrote:
> Hi Francesco,
> I will create the superroute and route relations as an example. If you
> don't like the solution, feel free to remove those rel
would need role forward/backward in the route relation, which cannot be
combined with role transfer.
On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 11:24 AM Francesco Ansanelli
> Dear Polyglot,
> it sounds good to me. But what roles do you suggest for such superroute?
> Many thanks
How would you feel about mapping it with a superroute relation?
The superroute would then contain 3 route relations.
1 for the first part by bicycle
1 for the middle part by train
1 for the last part by bicycle
If we give the train part a different role in the superroute, we can make
fietsstraat / rue cyclable are really 'a thing' in Belgium. Usually the
whole street is redesigned, it's not just a traffic sign on both ends. Red
asphalt, giant flower pots. Car drivers don't seem to realise that they are
not allowed to overtake cyclists in most of them though. So that's a bit
You probably meant 5, not 15. I think it's OK to repeat the address on that
On Sun, Aug 23, 2020 at 6:53 PM Thibault Molleman <
> Update on my example I gave. We changed it to
> addr:housename=Residentie Den Oude Post
PT_assistant can split the roundabout for you if you use JOSM
On Sat, Aug 22, 2020, 19:20 Volker Schmidt wrote:
> That's the approach anyway for bicycle and bus route relations on
> Yes, it causes additional work, because you need to split the roundabout
12-14/1. It's unlikely a 1B, 2C or 3D will appear...
On Sun, Aug 23, 2020 at 7:49 AM Thibault Molleman <
> I think the old building at that location used to be split in 2 (thus the
> 2 housenumbers).
> So Kasteelstraat 12 does not exist anym
You could add all. My solution would be to add no stop_position nodes to
the route relations. I would suffice with a single platform node that
represents platform and has all the relevant details.
That's not how train stops are mapped atm though, and some platforms are
divided in zones. In that
In Antwerpen there is a bus that you can only take, as a cyclist, so
accompanied by a bicycle. It's a subsidised service of the harbour, free
for its users (commuters). The bus replaces a ferry and goes through a
tunnel, prohibited for cyclists riding a bicycle.
On Thu, Jul 23, 2020,
If you enabled expert mode, you can download from Overpass directly into
On Sun, Jun 14, 2020, 23:29 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
> Jun 14, 2020, 22:55 by vosc...@gmail.com:
> Is it not possible to get people who were involved in the
By the way, superroute relations in JOSM now show continuity correctly if
the last node of the last way is the same as the first node of the first
way in two sequential route relations. (It was a feature request I made and
someone developed it).
On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 8:47 PM Kevin Kenny
oh, I'm mapping public transport too much. I actually did mean to write
On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 7:44 PM Yves wrote:
> While the original question was about a good tag to record the section
> number, whick look like a reference, I would be tempted to answer Jo that
I would say the route name goes on the routemaster relation. That way it's
possible to differentiate in the names of the route relations and make them
more specific. That's probably not what Peter is proposing though.
On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 7:40 PM Tod Fitch wrote:
> I was un
On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 6:42 PM Peter Elderson wrote:
> Hold on to your hat In the name tag I will store...The Name Of The
> Op za 23 mei 2020 om 18:18 schreef Jo :
>> In the end, what will be left in the name tag exactly?
In the end, what will be left in the name tag exactly?
On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 5:53 PM Peter Elderson wrote:
> I am trying to improve on the name-tag mess in the many hiking/foot routes
> in Nederland. All kinds of information is packed in those names. I am not
> doing any cleaning
Commons a contributor may
consider your picture not noteworthy enough or violating Panorama Rights, I
forget the correct term.
On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 2:30 PM European Water Project <
> Hi Jo and Paul,
> I am currently uploading the imag
Another possibility is to add the image to Mapillary and then use the
mapillary tag to refer to it.
On Tue, May 19, 2020, 14:05 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
> May 19, 2020, 13:41 by europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com:
> >Is it possible to use an API
If the fountains don't have identifiers that are suitable for ref, you may
be able to add them to wikidata (if they are 'notable' enough for that
project and you have permission to add them to a cc0 licensed project). You
can only do that for fountains that YOU have added yourself though, you
On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 12:49 PM Steve Doerr
> On 14/05/2020 09:31, Jo wrote:
> On Wed, May 13, 2020, 17:44 Jmapb wrote:
>> Regarding the original question -- in what circumstances are
>> single-member walking/hiking/biking route relations a good map
On Wed, May 13, 2020, 17:44 Jmapb wrote:
> On 5/13/2020 10:12 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
> We've had relations for over a decade now, IIRC. It's time to stop
> treating this basic primitive as entity-non-grata. If tools *still* can't
> deal with this, this is on the tools and their developers
It only makes sense if the teleférico can be used all year around and is
useful for the whole public. If it's only there to get skiers up a
mountain, I don't think it's part of the public transport network.
On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 10:43 AM Martin Koppenhoefer
> sent fro
that one to be public transport.
On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 10:33 AM Martin Koppenhoefer
> Am Di., 31. März 2020 um 04:22 Uhr schrieb Gegorian Hauser <
>> There are over 15000 aerialway stations in Europe and over 1000 are just
Well, since I'm able to communicate in Esperanto, albeit not fluently
anymore, I would definitely like to keep name:eo, probably interlingua and
those as well.
I'm not expecting an invasion of Klingons or Elven, so those don't seem all
Roman, you mean Latin? It existed, people
simple as it can get, no duplication, but still contains
all the relevant information. That is the point.
On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 9:11 AM Jo wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 4:20 AM Jarek Piórkowski
>> On Wed, 11 Mar 2020 at 23:09,
On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 4:20 AM Jarek Piórkowski
> On Wed, 11 Mar 2020 at 23:09, Joseph Eisenberg
> > > In inclement weather, passengers may well be found waiting in
> > the transit shelter 8 metres to west, and the tram will stop for them
> > if they are waiting in the
And if we do that, then those nodes don't really need roles in the route
The problem with PTv2 is that it was an attempt to streamline how buses
were mapped based on how railway was mapped, where it would have made more
sense to go in the other direction and map railway the way bus
That stop_position nodes became optional is probably because of my
influence. In the beginning they were definitely part of how PTv2. I
disliked this very much because all of a sudden we were using 2 objects to
define a single stop, duplicating details, which seemed like a very bad
idea. And it
If I remember well, there is also route=walking...
You are right that it doesn't make very much sense to make the distinction.
But now to get all mappers to choose for either hiking or foot will prove
to be an impossible task. As usual it will be status quo that wins, like
you saw in the result
My take on this would be to create a separate route relation for the
funicular part and add that to the bicycle route relation. For validation
purposes that would be the simplest and clearest way of doing things.
Simply adding the rails would mean that you'd have to cycle on the rails,
or at least
Jesus would float, obviously, but what about his bicycle?
On Fri, Dec 13, 2019, 20:59 Peter Elderson wrote:
> We happily add ferry transfers to hiking routes. Nobody has been found
> trying to walk on the water. Nobody that we know of...
> Fr gr Peter Elderson
> Op vr 13 dec. 2019 om
I mean url, not URL
On Tue, Nov 19, 2019, 17:17 Jo wrote:
> He means the URL of a dedicated page for a stop on the operator's website.
> My preference would be to simply use URL for this purpose.
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2019, 15:40 Janko Mihelić wrote:
He means the URL of a dedicated page for a stop on the operator's website.
My preference would be to simply use URL for this purpose.
On Tue, Nov 19, 2019, 15:40 Janko Mihelić wrote:
> There is a mailing list for public transport, it's
the confusion is that emergency may refer to rooms, but usually in
OpenStreetMap it refers to access for emergency vehicles.
On Sun, Nov 3, 2019 at 8:58 AM Andrew Errington
> We have a local hospital. It is tiny and has no emergency room.
> On 03/11/2019, Francesco Ansanelli
Forgot the link: https://zonnetrein.be/en/
On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 1:04 PM Jo wrote:
> It's indeed a lot like that train in Tenerife.
> Since it's solar powered (supposedly), it's called Zonnetrein.
> Not a real train, no rails, more like a bus, but specifically targete
It's indeed a lot like that train in Tenerife.
Since it's solar powered (supposedly), it's called Zonnetrein.
Not a real train, no rails, more like a bus, but specifically targeted to
tourists or group events.
It's true we don't have a way to map this, so for now I would have been
In my own city we have an electric train like bus that has a few stops and
is specifically meant for tourists. Not double decker with an open roof and
it's slow, but OK. It has an itinerary and dedicated hop on/hop off stops.
I would like to be able to map it.
I would also like to be able to map
What about long_distance_bus, if you don't like coach? motorbus doesn't
really convey much information. All buses we are talking about have a
motor. The only exception I can think of is this Italian pedibus, which
isn't really a bus at all. (Accompanied children who take the same
itinerary on a
For what it's worth, I think your proposal makes sense.
On Sun, Sep 8, 2019 at 6:28 PM Janko Mihelić wrote:
> Has no one any opinion on this? I have a feeling this is important for the
> future of the Openstreetmap - Wikidata relationship..
> On Fri, Sep 6, 2019, 15:05
Indeed, but I don't think it makes sense to use them for each and every stop
On Wed, Aug 21, 2019, 10:11 marc marc wrote:
> Le 21.08.19 à 09:58, Markus a écrit :
> > Otherwise, we need a new relation (maybe type=stop_position?) to
> > connect the stop position to the waiting area
OK, I have fixed my fair share of route relations, both public transport
and bicycle and foot routes.
I find it easier to EDIT them, when they are sorted. To figure out there
are problems with them, when they are sorted. JOSM actually does a great
job with the sorting. For bicycle, foot and horse
Peter, I think Martin's question comes from a misunderstanding. You
probably meant the route relations were broken by someone editing before
you. Martin seems to have understood that you have to check all those route
relations, after you edited them yourself.
On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 9:52 AM
On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 1:57 PM Sarah Hoffmann wrote:
> (making this a new topic)
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 11:56:30AM +0200, Peter Elderson wrote:
> > I strongly prefer to have one relation for the main route, and separate
> relations for alternatives. Put those together in a relation
As far as I'm concerned junction=roundabout means that that OSM way is part
of a roundabout. That's how it behaves.
JOSM is perfectly capable of handling split or unsplit roundabouts, except
for ad hoc rendering of the routes. With unsplit roundabouts, they all have
'bulges'. Hence my preference
On Sun, Aug 4, 2019, 16:40 Martin Koppenhoefer
> it is just an excuse to insist on using pt=platform for things that aren’t
> platforms and justify it with saying it means waiting area.
> I don’t think we should define pt=platform for something different than a
> public transport
Use semicolons, for a range use 4;5;6. Be explicit and keep with the
standard value separator.
On Sun, Aug 4, 2019 at 2:17 PM Andrew Harvey
> It could be cultural but I've always understood that the hyphen (-), ie.
> 1-3 would mean it covers 1, 2 and 3, while if you say 1;3 or 1,3 then
> highway=platform and/or railway=platform are needed, because
>> public_transport=platform doesn't mean a platform, but a waiting area.
>> And a waiting areas doesn't need to be a platform: some waiting areas
>> are just poles or signs beside the road , others are located on the
For a few years now, I've been considering to make a proposal for mapping
PT in a simpler way. I haven't done it because it's a lot of work and there
will always be quite a few mappers who prefer the status quo.
Anyway, I think we need 1 object which has all the properties of a stop as
For platform numbers or letters I've seen local_ref being used succesfully.
For train platforms it is also possible they are divided into zones, where
one part of the train may have one destination, and the other another
destination. Such trains are split either in that station or a subsequent
bus_bay = right | left | both ( https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/485293336
For me the object that represents the bus stop, is always a simple node. I
don't see a problem for doing that in bus stations as well.
If there are actual platforms, whether in a bus station or somewhere along
:41 AM Jo wrote:
> duplicating information across multiple objects.
> I found that what works best is to have nodes on the side of the road to
> represent the stops. These nodes have positional information and can carry
> all the tags for the details.
> If there is an act
duplicating information across multiple objects.
I found that what works best is to have nodes on the side of the road to
represent the stops. These nodes have positional information and can carry
all the tags for the details.
If there is an actual elevated platform, it can be represented by a
A bus stop, a place where a bus halts to pick up and drop off passengers is
both real and current. Tying it to a geographic object can be done in
various ways, as we've shown over the past years.
I read the wiki a few times over the past years and then I started looking
for something that works,
At some point diapers need to be changed...
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 6:44 PM Valor Naram wrote:
> Oh thanks. Corrected it
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:changing_table and I also
> notified all downstream users that this feature replaces Key:diaper
> On Wed, 2019-06-12 at
Who's going to keep the tally? Maybe we need an actual tool to help with
this (I'm not proposing to write one or figure what could be used for doing
so). But what if the 4 proposals are reached? Or someone feels the need to
post 40 comments during a month? How do we stop the flood?
Indeed not a platform, just a bus stop with a bench and maybe a shelter,
not sure. If the kerb were a bit higher where the bus halts, I'd say
platform, but this is just a sidewalk.
That we map such a node with public_transport=platform/bus=yes doesn't make
it a platform. That's just convention
a platform, whether tagged as public_transport=platform, highway=platform
or railway=platform is always accessible and routeable for pedestrians. So
no need to explicitly tag them with highway=footway or foot=yes or
something of that nature.
On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 6:28 PM Nick Bolten
, so that's
definitely not the name fo that specific itinerary either.
On Sat, May 11, 2019 at 8:54 PM Philip Barnes wrote:
> On Sat, 2019-05-11 at 19:09 +0100, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Sat, 11 May 2019 at 18:53, Mateusz Konieczny
> The question is whatever it
And I like to see all that prepended with the name of the operator...
On Sat, May 11, 2019 at 7:32 PM Markus wrote:
> On Fri, 10 May 2019 at 18:16, Markus wrote:
> > On Fri, 10 May 2019 at 13:50, Hufkratzer wrote:
> > >
> > > It would probably better to use description=* than
If we're expanding the list of possible tags for buses, we shouild probably
also consider route=coach, for long distance travel on a regular schedule.
On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 11:57 AM Martin Koppenhoefer
> I admit I am not familiar with the situation on the ground, but your
When I start mapping a bus line, I have several route relations which
contain all the stops for each variation in itinerary.
When I add the ways, it would be nice to reuse subroute relations for the
parts where ways are shared between lines.
When I come back later and I want to compare whether
Good analysis Seirra,
I would not "reuse" route=road in other route=* relations though.
route=bicycle might share segments with route=foot/walking/hiking, but I'd
keep everything related to bus/trolley_bus and coach together in terms of
sharing of subroutes not mix it with other route types.
I would definitely want routes to be composed of subroutes which are shared
with other routes, hence the reasoning of keeping the stop sequences in the
On Thu, Mar 14, 2019, 15:41 Paul Allen On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 at 11:21, Tony Shield
> Am I right in thinking
I think we should move to subrelations for bus routes at some point.
Actually doing it is somewhat tricky. We'd definitely need editor support
to show that a route which consists of subroutes is continuous or not. The
biggest point of contention seems to be whether the stops should go into
Regarding the proposal, feel free to try and apply it on your bus routes.
And if you mapped say a hundred, you can even change the proposal's status
and bring it up for a vote. Be prepared for quite a bit of resistance
though, but for what it's worth, I'm likely to vote in favour. The main
I think most people will be against having variable roles in the route
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 8:04 PM santamariense wrote:
> > I also created a proposal, but I knew in advance it wouldn't be practical
> > to duplicate full GTFS functionality in OSM.
> Well, this is not a
I also created a proposal, but I knew in advance it wouldn't be practical
to duplicate full GTFS functionality in OSM:
I'm creating this proposal, which does have information about the operators
/ agencies, which
The proposal was voted upon.
On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 9:54 PM Tijmen Stam wrote:
> On 31-10-18 00:54, Leif Rasmussen wrote:
> > Hello everyone!
> > I recently wrote up a proposal page for public transport schedule data.
> > This information would allow OpenStreetMap to store information about
The existing scheme for tagging cycle routes is robust. The problem I see
when 'reusing' it in a hierarchy of routes, is that we would need a role to
indicate that the sub route is traversed in reverse for a particular
"super" route. It would also help to have an indicator in JOSM to indicate
Please don't add public transport stops to hiking route relations. That
would be really confusing.
On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 2:39 PM Dave Swarthout
> Peter: " Mapping a trailhead node as I suggested does not stand in the way
> of more complex options. My idea: begin with the
I look forward to a new vote and will vote in favour of what you're
On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 8:29 PM Nikulainen, Jukka K <
> Hello Paul, and thank you for your input!
> You are indeed correct that my follow-up proposal would very
It is still possible to tag a highway with 1 single railway track on it
highway=* + railway=tram/train. But this proposal is for the case where the
highway has 2 railiway tracks which are already mapped separately because
the way railways curve is different from how how highways behave at
The whole issue is that due to tram rails bending differently than road
ways, the tram rails are mapped on their own OSM ways. This gives a nicely
detailed rendering, a better description of reality, but now the
information that for the straight parts the rails are embedded into the
One thing that I found while trying this 'little' exercise is that it would
be good to have an object that 'represents' an operator or a network. I was
using this to keep track of holidays with Sunday schedule and when school
vacations are, because that influences the timetables, but it could
(started writing this several hours ago)
The way this proposal is evolving, there will be 2 versions. One that
gives an approximate idea of how much time there is between 2 buses for a
given time of day/day of week. Those can be added as tags on the route
That one should not be
Op di 6 nov. 2018 om 20:22 schreef djakk djakk :
> Ok I see.
> I am still a bit reluctant to your proposal since the travelling time
> between 2 stops can vary during the day, especially for train routes.
> Ok there is the possibility of adding a new timetable relation ...
>>> osm (except an osm mapper really wants to put it into osm, knowing per
>>> habits the schedule).
>>> Julien « djakk »
>>> Le mar. 6 nov. 2018 à 16:28, Jo a écrit :
>>> Martin, maybe locals do know their bus stop timetable, as they always
>>> use the service they may memorize the schedules ... ?
>>> Le lun. 5 nov. 2018 à 17:08, Jo a écrit :
You made me do it! :-) I sort of stole your proposal and started creating a
new one. It differs in rather important ways from your proposal, so I
preferred not modifying your wiki page. I also think it's important to
decouple the (voting for a) full timetable solution from the solution
for the school, market and student buses that run relatively infrequently.
Op za 3 nov. 2018 om 23:16 schreef OSMDoudou <
> Considering De Lijn may share their data as GTFS, isn’t it a better effort
> to integrate instead of duplicate e
Op za 3 nov. 2018 om 16:25 schreef Leif Rasmussen <354...@gmail.com>:
> I think that having a timetable relation for each stop is less complicated
> than having one per route. There are several advantages to this:
> 1) People can e
rrival time only.
> Should we use 0-24-25 hour format ? (when a trip starts at 23:45 and
> finishes 30 minutes later at 0:15, which is sometimes written 24:15 in a
> gtfs. )
> Julien “djakk”
> Le sam. 3 nov. 2018 à 12:53, Jo a écrit :
eparture time only - except for the last stop :
> means arrival time only.
> Should we use 0-24-25 hour format ? (when a trip starts at 23:45 and
> finishes 30 minutes later at 0:15, which is sometimes written 24:15 in a
> gtfs. )
> Julien “djakk”
they are ahead of their schedule by more than a few minutes.
Op za 3 nov. 2018 om 12:02 schreef djakk djakk :
> Jo, I did not try yet, but I think there should be a departure timetable
> AND an arrival timetable (trains often stop several minutes). And this, per
But I'm trying to explore how we could add timetable information for
regions where this kind of service doesn't exist.
Op za 3 nov. 2018 om 11:22 schreef Mateusz Konieczny <
> So this assumes that bus travels for the
When done this way, the departures in the tags are for the stop with role
Op za 3 nov. 2018 om 11:09 schreef Jo :
> I'm looking into this timetable relation and how it could be implemented:
I'm looking into this timetable relation and how it could be implemented:
This is for a simple line...
I added all the stops of the route relation and added the most common times
to get from one to the next. I realise things can get
Op wo 31 okt. 2018 om 09:31 schreef djakk djakk :
> Hello ! I think it’s a good idea to “replace” GTFS files with OSM data.
> In OSM there is already half of the GTFS (the relations that describes
> stops and route).
We have the part of GTFS that makes sense to have in a geographical
1 - 100 of 369 matches
Mail list logo