[Tagging] edit war related to tagging of a bus-only major road

[Michael Tsang]

Dear all,

I'm working with some roads in Central area in Hong Kong. Des Voeux Road 
Central is considered one of the most important roads in the area which I 
tagged it as highway=secondary, however another editor has repeatedly changed 
it to highway=service on the fact that that road is closed to motor vehicles 
except buses. An edit war has appeared.

Here is the relevant changesets and ways:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/94428780#map=17/22.28199/114.15872
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/242113655#map=17/22.28168/114.15911
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/95558773

According to the wiki description of highway=secondary, such road "is not part 
of a major route, but nevertheless forming a link in the national route 
network." Des Voeux Road Central (between Queensway and Pottinger Street) is 
such a highway for buses only. Tens of bus routes are using this road to serve 
passengers between Wan Chai to Central, while other motor vehicles must use 
the other highways in the region (also tagged as highway=secondary).

However, a highway=service is "generally for access", and also "for access for 
parking, driveways and alleys". Des Voeux Road Central is definitely not the 
case here. It is instead a major road in the road network usable by buses.

What should I do here now?

Michael
-- 
Sent from KMail

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Minibus routes

[Michael Tsang]

Dear all,

I'm looking for community consensus about minibus routes (public transport 
routes which are operated by light passenger vehicles of roughly 8 to 20 seats 
with no standing allowed in general). As of present, there are two kinds of 
tagging for minibus routes:

A. route=minibus (~30 routes around the world)
B. route=bus & bus=minibus (~300 routes around the world)

None of the tags seem to have widespread usage.

Currently I can't see any renderer support for both tagging. For option A, no 
renderer shows them at all. For option B, they are shown as regular bus routes.

Moreover, I can think of different regulatory scenarios, which may match the 
different usage:

X. The minibus services are regulated as a separate class of service to 
full-sized bus routes, with different operators, network and fare structures, 
which may even with numbers overlapping (e.g. a minibus route 25 and another 
full sized bus route 25 serving the same area)

Y. The minibus services form a part of the bus network but with distinct 
identities (e.g. a range of numbers reserved for minibus routes and another 
range for full sized bus routes, with different fare scales but still in the 
integrated ticket structure)

Z. There are no distinction in the branding between bus and minibus services, 
the vehicle used mainly depend on the environment.

Tagging A will match scenario X and tagging B will match scenario Z, with 
scenario Y in between in my thinking.

I'm looking for input how other people map their minibus routes, and how are 
their routes regulated.

Regards,
Michael

Get Outlook for Android
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - U-turn

[Michael Tsang]

Dear all,

I have proposed a new feature - U-turn -  to mark whether U-turning is legally 
allowed on the highway by introducing a new key u_turn = yes / no to be 
applied on highway=* .

This is used for routing purpose, such that when U-turn is allowed, the router 
can instruct the driver to make a U-turn directly on the road, mostly to 
circumvent turn restrictions (for example, turn left then U-turn immediately 
to circumvent no turn right restriction).

The link to the proposal page: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/
Proposed_features/U-turn

Michael
-- 
Sent from KMail

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Road hierarchy

[Michael Tsang]

On Wednesday, 07 August 2019 19:26:57 HKT Paul Allen wrote:

> Standard carto gives secondary, and higher, roads their own colours and
> renders
> tertiary roads wider than residential roads.  This allows people to use
> that most
> primitive of routeing algorithms called "looking at the map."  Your scheme
> would
> break this whenever such a road passes through a town.  In my part of the
> world
> there are many "ribbon" villages along primary and secondary roads.  Perhaps
> no more than a dozen houses, possibly only one one side of the road.  By
> your
> logic the road ceases to be a primary road and becomes a residential road.
> A long stretch of red/pink road with a bleached bit where the village is.
>

If the "primary purpose" of the road is through traffic, and the "driving 
experience" is like on a major road (e.g. straight, fast, no obstruction, no 
give way, etc.), that part of the road is still red / pink.

However, if that road is built like the other residential cul-de-sac with a 
lot of slowing and calming features like give ways, curves, or very narrow 
such that it become a choke point causing serious traffic congestion every day, 
I will think it as residential.

Michael

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

[Michael Tsang]

On Friday, 02 August 2019 21:32:15 HKT Markus wrote:
> On Friday, August 2, 2019, yo paseopor  wrote:
> > The only negative point for public transport v2 scheme was the
> > no-deprecation of the old scheme to avoid duplicities (surely was done
> > this
> > to don't uncomfort people)
> > Salut i transport públic (Health and public_transport)
> > yopaseopor
> 
> IMHO the main problems are the unnecessary public_transport=stop_position,
> which complicates mapping a lot, and the misnamed
> public_transport=platform, which means waiting area (and may or may not
> have platform), but was intended to also replace railway/highway=platform,
> which means a real platform (a raised structure).

I think there is a need for public_transport=stop_position. Although 99.9% of 
the cases the bus stops directly at the platform, there are some edge cases 
where the bus does not stop at the platform due to practical reasons, i.e. the 
passengers need to board the bus on a service road not next to the platform. 
The platform serves as the waiting area, is also a real platform, and also 
marked by the route.

The example platform is this: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4335709196 
There are routes 8A and 8P, 8A stops directly at the way next to it, while 8P 
is boarded outside that way because that way is parked by 8A buses yet to be 
departed.

Michael

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Road hierarchy

[Michael Tsang]

On Sunday, 04 August 2019 23:06:47 HKT Paul Allen wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 at 15:51, Florian Lohoff  wrote:
> > Where do you take this assumption from? I have never heard before that
> > residential may not be used for through traffic?
> 
> Many residential roads are cul-de-sacs.  Dead ends.  Not classed as through
> roads because
> they don't lead anywhere except the houses that are on them.  Others can be
> used as routes
> from A to B but there are other routes that are shorter/wider/faster or
> some combination of those.
> And then there are tertiary (or higher) roads which lead from A to B but
> which also have houses
> along them.
> 
> A cul-de-sac, which many residential roads are, can never be used by
> through traffic.  Roads
> used by through traffic can have houses on them.  It is useful to make a
> distinction in a way
> that makes sense.

In Hong Kong, there are two major roads Pok Fu Lam Road (uphill, primary) and 
Victoria Road (downhill, secondary), which serve as major thoroughfare between 
districts, which the former has much higher importance. There are two roads 
connecting them in Pok Fu Lam, one is called Sassoon Road, and another is in 
form of Y-shape with a loop at the centre called Bisney Road / Consort Rise.

Sassoon Road is suitable for medium-sized vehicles to pass through and is the 
preferred road for traffic going up / down the hill, which is mapped as 
tertiary 
(because it isn't used for major traffic between districts, but mainly used for 
accessing local destinations inside Pok Fu Lam, we don't have an official 
system 
lower than trunk). There is a university along the road.

Bisney Road / Consort Rise passes through a quiet neighbourhood which is steep 
and curved, making it unsuitable for any medium / large vehicles to pass with 
a legal weight limit restricted to light vehicles. Therefore it is mapped as 
residential. The primary purpose of that road is to access the neighbourhood, 
however some vehicles (including myself) also use it as a thoroughfare on a 
light vehicle (especially a motorcycle) because it is shorter and has less 
traffic than Sassoon Road, even through the speed is much slower as the road is 
steep and curved.

The ability of through traffic passing a road does not depend on the 
classification. As long as it is the shortest / widest / fastest path 
connecting major roads, it will have through traffic even the driving 
experience 
is the same as driving into a cul-de-sac in a neighbourhood. Therefore we 
don't need to distinguish them in the tagging. The residential / unclassified 
difference should be reflected in the driving experience (you expect houses and 
residents on residential road which you should be careful not to disturb them, 
but not on an unclassified road).

Michael

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Road hierarchy

[Michael Tsang]

On Sunday, 04 August 2019 16:46:26 HKT Tomas Straupis wrote:
> 2019-08-04, sk, 11:32 Florian Lohoff rašė:
> > For me unclassified is the same as residential. <...>
> 
>   Ok, so unclassified vs residential is regionally defined, as I wrote.
> 
>   But what about service/track?
> 

They are not public roads - service is like an access for some specific 
purpose, while track is something more like "forest track" which are not roads 
but passable by vehicles. This definition does not deal with pavedness or not.

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Road hierarchy

[Michael Tsang]

On Sunday, 04 August 2019 15:41:09 HKT Tomas Straupis wrote:
> > Personally, I'd have put residential / living together above unclassified
> 
>   Interesting. Unclassified was always (more than 10 years) defined
> for "through traffic" which puts it a higher in a hierarchy. From what
> I understand it was always in the group of primary/secondary/tertiary
> just the one which does not have an official classification - thus
> "unclassified".

For me residential and unclassified are the same level - the former is used for 
residential area, the latter is used for non-residential area. Even a road 
which pass through others' backyards and used for through traffic is still 
residential as long as it is used mostly by residents.

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



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] consensus needed: officially a town but visibly distinct settlements?

[Michael Tsang]

On Sunday 19 August 2018 10:07:46 HKT Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> I am most certainly not a local!, but going by
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curonian_Spit, it certainly doesn't appear to
> be one "settlement"?

Well, officially, The northern half is a "city" municipality (apart from 
Smiltynė which is a suburb of Klaipėda) (though the word "city" was dropped in 
2000)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neringa_Municipality

-- 
Sent from KMail

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] consensus needed: officially a town but visibly distinct settlements?

[Michael Tsang]

On Sunday 19 August 2018 10:07:46 HKT Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:

> On 19 August 2018 at 04:59, Yves  wrote:
> > Who cares if the presence of a post office is the criterum to be a
> > 'village' for a 200 people place if it's the only inhabited place 100km
> > around?
> 
> This is a problem we encounter frequently in Australia. The "settlement"
> may consist only of a service station or a pub, plus 1 - 2 houses, so it
> "should" be an OSM hamlet, but it is also the main attraction / centre of
> life (& sometimes the only buildings!) for 300 klm in any direction.
> 
> Do you mark it as a hamlet, which will only render at extreme zoom, or mark
> it as a village / town, as it is a vital source of supplies / fuel /
> contact?

If, from a site visit, residents nearby come here for shopping food, etc. 
(vital economic activity) I would mark it as village, otherwise hamlet. I 
would also compare to nearby places to see if there are service stations and 
pubs in settlements of similar populations, to determine what kind of services 
are expected in village/hamlet there.

Michael

-- 
Sent from KMail

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] consensus needed: officially a town but visibly distinct settlements?

[Michael Tsang]

On Saturday 18 August 2018 22:10:15 HKT José G Moya Y. wrote:
> Plwase take into notice that, in some countries, the difference between
> suburb, hamlet, town or village is not only based on population but in
> political issues, such as self-government, also.
> 
> When I see my hometown is defined as "aldea" (hamlet) in wikidata I always
> got angry, because, being statistically a hamlet (~200 people), it *is*
> politically a *village* (it elects its own town major and has its own self
> government and budget).
> 
> There are many such villages in Spain, (specially in the "Spanish Finland",
> the demographic desert between Soria and Teruel) and that is a point of
> conflict with many EU directives that request villages provide services a
> such small villages can't afford.

But does it look like a village from an untrained eye? i.e. what services does 
it provide? If it really provides services that a village provide than it is 
really a village.

If I am doing the mapping, if the settlement is small (less than 200 people) 
AND does not provide services where a village should provide, I will mark it 
as a hamlet despite every official designation.

-- 
Sent from KMail

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] consensus needed: officially a town but visibly distinct settlements?

[Michael Tsang]

Dear all,

I visited the whole Curonian Spit last month (the whole 100 km from 
Zelenogradsk to Smiltynė) and made some edits on it according to observations 
from my eye. These edits got reverted on the basis that I have "no local 
knowledge" (I made the edits completely on observations - "If it looks like a 
duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.")

Basically there were 2 sets of edit which got reverted, I am going to focus on 
the issue of settlement tagging here (another set is road tagging):

1. I have marked the settlements from Nida to Alksnynė, from suburb to town/
village/hamlet, because they are clearly distinct settlements from eyes, 
separated by the forest, and relabelled Neringa to be a municipality.

One more reason of that is we are expecting the name "Nida" shown as the town 
because we, as a tourist, is expecting to visit Nida (that town is generally 
known as Nida rather than Neringa)

The changesets are 61735279 and 61735890. If we look at the history of Nida 
and Alksnynė, they were mapped as town and hamlet respectively initially, but 
got changed to suburb about 3 years ago.

Smiltynė can be reasonably considered part of Klaipėda (only a short ferry 
ride) so it is a suburb out of question.

According to the wiki, "OSM's usage of 'suburb' is different than that used by 
North American English, where a suburb is "an area, often residential, outside 
of a central city". Often these suburbs are distinct settlements and will be 
tagged as place=village, place=town, or place=city, depending on factors such 
as population." What I see those settlements seems to be the North American 
definition because they are distinct residential areas outside the central 
town Nida.

These got reverted in 61762622, saying (translated) "Bookmark management 
(canceled guessing without local knowledge)" and a comment is left on my 
changeset 61735279 "Reverted incorrect change with no local knowledge.", and 
"Whole Curonian Spit is officialy one town. Therefore no hamlets inside."

Well, the southern settlements, Morskoye, Rybachy and Lesnoy, have been marked 
since the beginning villages and hamlets with no change afterwards, but they 
are officially belongs to the same "Curonian Spit rural settlement", similar 
to Nida to Alksnynė which officially belongs to "Neringa municipality" with 
its capital in Nida.

So I doubt if it is reasonable to mark those settlements "which belongs to a 
city municipality (although there is no true city there) but distinct 
(seperated by forest) from a naked eye" as "suburb", rather than town/village/
hamlet/etc, and need community consensus on this.

Michael
-- 
Sent from KMail

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] public transport through service

[Michael Tsang]

On Saturday 23 June 2018 01:56:00 HKT Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2018, 10:36 Michael Tsang  wrote:
> > My problem is "How should we tag a public transport through
> > service route?"
> 
> What's the use case?  Better interchange for OSM to GTFS synchronization?

Useful for PT routing engine which applies penalty on interchange (in such 
case, a through route comes with no interchange penalty)

-- 
Sent from KMail

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] public transport through service

[Michael Tsang]

I have raised this topic two years ago but it seems that there is no community 
consensus here. My problem is "How should we tag a public transport through 
service route?"

In my city there are the following cases:

1. A simple circular route where a passenger can normally stay on board 
through the end / start point unless the vehicle is taken out of service.

Example:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2941692

2. A route where the vehicle always enter another specific route unless the 
vehicle is taken out of service, and the passenger can stay aboard.

Example (the vehicle on one of the following routes will enter the other 
reaching the end where the passenger can stay on board):
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5955257
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5955258

3. A service where the vehicle runs a part of the route, and enters another 
mid-route:

Example: A particular departure on route 751 below will enter route 507 upon 
reaching Choy Yee Bridge in order to cope with passenger demand at that 
particular time, the ref shown will be changed at that en-route stop:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2926506 (751)
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6481316 (507)

4. A service, due to operational reasons, changes the ref in particular fixed 
points along the route (e.g. when crossing system boundary), but marketed as 
one route on promotional materials (e.g. the train from Foshan to Kowloon, 
which operates as Z806 between Foshan and Guangzhou and Z803 from Guangzhou to 
Kowloon, but it is a single trip with absolutely no alighting allowed at 
Guangzhou)

Are there any existing practices to deal with these kinds of routes?

Michael
-- 
Sent from KMail

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] new role for route relations: reverse

[Michael Tsang]

There are some bus routes in my region where the bus needs to reverse into a 
narrow road even with passengers aboard, and more frequently in case of 
minibuses, for example:


https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3174915

[https://www.openstreetmap.org/assets/osm_logo_256-cde84d7490f0863c7a0b0d0a420834ebd467c1214318167d0f9a39f25a44d6bd.png]

Relation: ‪MTR Bus K66 (Long Ping → Tai Tong)‬ (‪3174915 
...
www.openstreetmap.org
OpenStreetMap is the free wiki world map. Updated 朗業街 Long Yip Street and Wang 
Lok Street junction.

In the route, the bus need to turn left into Kiu Hing Road and reverse to the 
terminus.



Sent from Outlook.com



From: Jo 
Sent: 29 May 2018 03:38
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Subject: Re: [Tagging] new role for route relations: reverse

I have also mapped many routes with loops, lollipops/spoons where the same ways 
are traversed multiple times. But I had not encountered a route where the bus 
needs to do parts driving backwards. I think this is mostly avoided because 
it's (obviously) a dangerous maneuver. (and I would say especially if you have 
to do it multiple times per day)

Jo

2018-05-28 19:33 GMT+02:00 Johnparis 
mailto:ok...@johnfreed.com>>:
Replying specifically to this point:

Sure, renderers and routers might cope with the bus going to point X and 
magically
switching its direction of travel by 180 degrees but it's a bit puzzling for 
data
consumers.  Does the bus go out of service there?  Is it a terminus?  Has the 
mapper
made a big mistake in the route?  Did some other mapper come along and
accidentally delete part of the route?  Etc.

I have mapped a fairly significant number of routes where exactly that happens. 
The bus enters a way and exits the way, traversing it twice. It seems to me to 
be nothing out of the ordinary.

But if this might really be a problem for consumers, you could add a 
description=* tag to the way rather than the note=* that I suggested. If this 
is the main reason for the proposed role, I would not be in favor of it. The 
second traversal is not really "reverse" in any sense. The traverses the way 
forward (south to north, say) the first time and the other direction (north to 
south) the second time. The traversals are consecutive. Totally normal in my 
view.






On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 6:09 PM, Paul Allen 
mailto:pla16...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 3:40 PM, Erkin Alp Güney 
mailto:erkinalp9...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Does it have any stops in the street it reverses into?

Not that I've seen.  But if somebody asked to get off there I'm fairly sure 
that most of the
drivers would permit it.  And since it backs as far as a bench, I'm also fairly 
sure most
drivers would let somebody sat on the bench waiting for the bus to board there.

If not, it is not formally a part of the route and just a convention.

Yes, but without it the route involves a role called "magic_turntable."

If this were an end of route turnaround at a terminus then it's not mappable.  
What
happens when passengers are not on board and the bus is technically out of 
service
are not part of the route.  But this is done with passengers on board in the 
middle of
the route.

Sure, renderers and routers might cope with the bus going to point X and 
magically
switching its direction of travel by 180 degrees but it's a bit puzzling for 
data
consumers.  Does the bus go out of service there?  Is it a terminus?  Has the 
mapper
made a big mistake in the route?  Did some other mapper come along and
accidentally delete part of the route?  Etc.

Unless having role=reverse is going to cause big problems for renderers or
routers I don't see any problem with having it.  I doubt it's going to get used
often, so it's not a problem regarding data storage.  But I could be wrong.

--
Paul


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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - hail and ride

[Michael Tsang]

Dear all,

The proposed feature "hail and ride" is open for voting:

Quoted from Wikipedia:
Hail and ride is boarding or alighting a mode of public transport by 
signalling the driver or conductor that one wishes to board or alight, rather 
than the more conventional system of using a designated stop.
For the way segment to be tagged hail_and_ride, the passenger must be able to 
hail and ride anywhere along the segment, or alighting anywhere on the segment 
by telling the driver, not limited to places where signs exist. This role is 
not for services which only allows passengers to board/alight at designated 
places where the vehicle does not stop if no request is made.

Regards,
Michael Tsang
-- 
Sent from KMail

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] minibus routes

[Michael Tsang]

Dear all,

Is there a generally accepted way to tag minibus routes? What I mean is that, 
the routes are not part of the standard bus route network, operated with fixed 
routing, and use light vehicles (less than 20 passengers).

I am tagging those routes currently with type=route route=minibus, but 
somewhere else in the world the minibus routes are tagged with type=route 
route=bus bus=minibus.

Michael
-- 
Sent from KMail

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - hail and ride

[Michael Tsang]

On Thursday 04 May 2017 11:58:39 Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

> Maybe the description can be more explicit regarding the stops. Are there
> any kind of stops or signs, or can you ask the bus to stop anywhere on the
> route on these segments? Around here there are a lot of "request stops" in
> the country side: you have to waive when the bus arrives or it won't stop
> (unless someone is getting off naturally), but there is a pole with a sign
> at these places (often not more infrastructure, i.e. no bench, waste basket
> or shelter). It would be nice if you wrote something about this so that
> people don't confuse these 2 systems (or is it the same?).

I have updated the description such that it requires passengers to be able to 
board/alight anywhere, not limited to stops.

Michael
-- 
Sent from KMail

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

Re: [Tagging] mandatory restriction with via way as members

[Michael Tsang]

On Thursday 04 May 2017 11:44:18 Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 2017-05-04 6:34 GMT+02:00 Michael Tsang :
> > I remapped those parts, but in order to prevent routing engines from
> > turning
> > illegally, I had to add a lot of restrictions onto the road, including the
> > use
> > of multi via-way where basically no currently available routing engines
> > support.
> 
> You have done it right by re-unifying the dual carriageway as there are no
> physical barriers. It is unfortunate that the routing engines currently
> don't support this kind of restriction (multiple via ways) which is fine
> according to the wiki. Did you try to reach out to the routing engine
> communities? Maybe they are not aware of the shortcoming and can implement
> it.

I have filed issues to various routing engine bug trackers regarding this.

Michael

-- 
Sent from KMail

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

Re: [Tagging] mandatory restriction with via way as members

[Michael Tsang]

On Tuesday 02 May 2017 11:25:10 Tobias Wrede wrote:

> I would understand it the same way. To be a little bit more concrete: If
> you come from the northbound Gloucester Rd via the nothern loop (way
> 46615969) onto Victoria Park Rd (way 46615970 and onward) you must
> continue on the northern bit of westbound Gloucester Rd (way 244383612)
> and you are not allowed to take the middle or southern Gloucester Rd
> (244383597 and 486608995). If you come from the secondary Gloucester Rd
> (way 486608999), the other bit of Victoria Park Rd (way 87081210),
> Cannon St or Percival St, though, you may continue on either the
> northern, middle or southern part of Gloucester Rd.
> 
> This arrangement looks a bit strange to me. Is this what you intended to
> tag? 

Yes, exactly.

> If there is such rule set in place on is there not any physical
> barrier on the road preventing the lane changes? 

The rule is on but there are only solid lines and police cars nearby without 
any physical barrier.

> That case might warrant
> splitting the raod into two parallel segments.

It was originally tagged so, but according to the discussions earlier titled 
"Tagging 'advance' turn restrictions", 

On Thursday 06 April 2017 00:29:49 Tom Pfeifer wrote:
> On 05.04.2017 23:19, Warin wrote:
> > Where the solid lines start have a separate way for each lane
> 
> Do _not_. Separate ways are used when the roads are physically separated,
> not when a white line is painted. Lane mapping would get you reverted.
> 
> > this way routing engines will regard them as separate roads and stop
> > trying to get you from one lane to another.
> 
> OSM is not only for car routing. Imagine a chicken wants to cross the road,
> and stumbles over all those separate ways just representing lanes.
> 
> > Then do your turn restrictions.
> 
> Turn restrictions are not used for restricting the change of lanes.
> 
> > On 06-Apr-17 04:09 AM, Kevin Kenny wrote:
> >> Do we have a scheme for tagging such a beast?
> 
> You can combine turn:lanes [1] with change:lanes [2], the first describe
> which lane you have to use for which turn, the second where you can change
> lanes and where not.
> 
> [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:turn
> [2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:change
> 
> If you want to show us the current situation, you can drive along with the
> mapillary app and upload, so you don't need to show outdated G*
> pictures ;-)

I remapped those parts, but in order to prevent routing engines from turning 
illegally, I had to add a lot of restrictions onto the road, including the use 
of multi via-way where basically no currently available routing engines 
support.

> 
> 
> Thank god I never had to drive own-handed in HK. :-)

Even commercial systems like Google Maps can't be trusted here because it 
cannot handle this situation.

Michael


-- 
Sent from KMail

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

[Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - hail and ride

[Michael Tsang]

Dear all,

I have made a proposal for “hail and ride” public transport routes:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/hail_and_ride

>From Wikipedia:
Hail and ride is boarding or alighting a mode of public transport by signalling 
the driver or conductor that one wishes to board or alight, rather than the 
more conventional system of using a designated stop.

Michael

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

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

Re: [Tagging] mandatory restriction with via way as members

[Michael Tsang]

This is just a fictional example, but I have created a real-world restriction:


http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7156063


What would you say this restriction means? Does it mean that once a vehicle 
starts the from way it must go along the whole length to the to way?

[http://www.openstreetmap.org/assets/osm_logo_256-835a859acf0d378e1d14e88b15e7b4b95211ccd41a2c061b1629cfbbb8deb697.png]<http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7156063>

OpenStreetMap | Relation: 7156063<http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7156063>
www.openstreetmap.org
OpenStreetMap is a map of the world, created by people like you and free to use 
under an open license.





Sent from Outlook.com



From: Paul Johnson 
Sent: 15 April 2017 17:14
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Subject: Re: [Tagging] mandatory restriction with via way as members


On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Michael Tsang 
mailto:mikl...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear all,

I have created a restriction (mandatory route) where if vehicles coming from 
way must go through a section of a trunk route before leaving it. Assume that 
an only_straight_on relation has been created with from A-C, via C-K-E (C-K-E 
is a single way but K is connected to D and J) and to E-G.

A little hard to tell here, can you annotate an aerial for your example for a 
better visualization?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Bus Bay

[Michael Tsang]

Dear all,

The bus bay proposal now enters voting stage:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/bus_bay#Comments

Michael
-- 
Sent from KMail

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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - extended voting - through service

[Michael Tsang]

Dear all,

As there are not enough votes for the proposal, the voting period is extended:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/through_service

Michael
-- 
Sent from KMail

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

[Tagging] mandatory restriction with via way as members

[Michael Tsang]

Dear all,

I have created a restriction (mandatory route) where if vehicles coming from 
way must go through a section of a trunk route before leaving it. Assume that 
an only_straight_on relation has been created with from A-C, via C-K-E (C-K-E 
is a single way but K is connected to D and J) and to E-G. In this case, is the 
vehicle allowed to do the following?

  B  D  L
  |  |  |
A-C-K-E-G
  |  |  |
  H  J  M


  1.  Go A-C-B
  2.  Go A-C-K-D
  3.  Go A-C-K-E
  4.  Go A-C-K-E-M

Michael

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bus bay

[Michael Tsang]

On Thursday 06 April 2017 21:42:15 Tobias Knerr wrote:
> On 06.04.2017 19:40, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> > why do you define this as a node? bus_bay=right or left does not make
> > sense on a node, and bus bays have a certain length anyway, I'd make it
> > a way.
> 
> It should not be a separate way if there is no physical separation. But
> I agree a node is not a good choice either.
> 
> So in my opinion, there are two obvious options here:
> 
> A) Create a bus_bay:left/right tagging similar to sidewalk=*,
> cycleway=*, shoulder=* and the parking:lane:* tags.
> 
> B) Map them as bus-only lanes using the :lanes syntax.
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

I have updated the proposal according to option A. I don't agree to option B 
because a bus day does not meet the definition of a lane.

Michael
-- 
Sent from KMail

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging 'advance' turn restrictions

[Michael Tsang]

On Thursday 06 April 2017 00:29:49 Tom Pfeifer wrote:
> On 05.04.2017 23:19, Warin wrote:
> > Where the solid lines start have a separate way for each lane
> 
> Do _not_. Separate ways are used when the roads are physically separated,
> not when a white line is painted. Lane mapping would get you reverted.
> 
> > this way routing engines will regard them as separate roads and stop
> > trying to get you from one lane to another.
> 
> OSM is not only for car routing. Imagine a chicken wants to cross the road,
> and stumbles over all those separate ways just representing lanes.
> 
> > Then do your turn restrictions.
> 
> Turn restrictions are not used for restricting the change of lanes.
> 
> > On 06-Apr-17 04:09 AM, Kevin Kenny wrote:
> >> Do we have a scheme for tagging such a beast?
> 
> You can combine turn:lanes [1] with change:lanes [2], the first describe
> which lane you have to use for which turn, the second where you can change
> lanes and where not.
> 
> [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:turn
> [2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:change
> 
> If you want to show us the current situation, you can drive along with the
> mapillary app and upload, so you don't need to show outdated G*
> pictures ;-)

There is a very complicated segment of highway in my city where, although the 
road is not separated, white lines are painted along the way regulating lane 
changes to force vehicles intending to cross the harbour enter a specific lane 
very early. Those lanes were mistakenly mapped as separate carriageways where 
I intensively modified to reflect the physical situation on the ground, with 
complete lane tags:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/47510812

An effect of those white lines is the prohibition below, which forbids all 
motor vehicles except buses and tourist bus from using the below route (note 
the bus lanes tagged in http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/485146377 ):

http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7139227#map=17/22.27987/114.18224

I need to make sure that routers do not show the above forbidden route except 
doing bus routing. Do the routers able to parse those extremely complicated 
lane taggings?

Michael

-- 
Sent from KMail

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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bus bay

[Michael Tsang]

Dear all,

I have made a proposal of bus bay:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/bus_bay#Tagging

A bus bay must be a bay outside the main carriageway (not included in lane 
count) and not physically separated. It does not matter whether a bus stop is 
placed at the bus bay or not. The only criteria a bay along a side of the road 
being considered a bus way is which the purpose is to pick up and/or drop off 
passengers.

Michael
-- 
Sent from KMail

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

[Tagging] highway=primary/secondary/tertiary - tag according to quality or usage?

[Michael Tsang]

Dear all,

There are some highways which the quality isn't up to the usage, resulting in 
congestion. Those highways connects high-quality motorway/trunk/primary 
highways together for long distance traffic, but they only have a single lane 
per direction, with lots of traffic lights, junctions, driveways, etc., 
resulting in slow traffic. Because the absence of roads of proper quality, 
those 
low quality roads become bottlenecks in the whole network.

A while ago, I tagged them all with highway=tertiary, consistent with the 
quality of highways around the region, disregarding the actual kinds of traffic 
on the highway, and someone retagged them as highway=primary reflecting the 
actual usage for long-distance inter-town traffic, and send a message to me 
about that.

What's the correct tag then?

Michael
-- 
Sent from KMail

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - flight route

[Michael Tsang]

On Monday 28 November 2016 12:47:41 Tom Pfeifer wrote:
> 
> Platforms, a.k.a. Gates, can already be mapped. Which flight they serve
> changes every day, this is neither mappable nor verifyable nor maintainable.

Sorry, aren't aeroplane routes, like bus routes, use fixed stop positions and 
platforms every departure?

Besides aeroplane routes, there are also helicopter routes where they 
definitely use fixed stop positions and platforms.

Michael
-- 
Sent from KMail

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - flight route

[Michael Tsang]

The consensus is that the flight path should not be mapped, but we are 
interested the airport (Stop positions and platforms) where the flight serves.

Michael

Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36>

From: Volker Schmidt
Sent: Sunday, 27 November, 17:23
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - flight route
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools

This is a complex issue.

Lets start from the end user's point of view:

Flight number XXxxx is sold by airline XX and goes from airport ABC to airport 
XYZ, possibly with scheduled intermediate stops at airport DEF (and possibly 
more).

That flight is operated by the same airline or by another airline YY as flight 
number YYyyy.

The actual flight route is not fixed, but is defined before departure by the 
flight's captain.

The flight route has to follow established flight corridors or tracks, which in 
turn are not fixed (for example the North Atlantic Tracks [1]).

So what can we map as geographic data in OSM? The airports and that's it. The 
"The way making up the route" is not mappable, because it is variable from 
instance to instance of the flight.

The only way out I can see, is to accept as "the way making up the route" 
fictitious tracks connecting the airports on the shortest route.

(I know that we map already shipping routes, which have, in principle, similar 
problems.)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Tracks)

On 26 November 2016 at 22:57, François Lacombe 
mailto:fl.infosrese...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Hi Michael,

Read your proposal and have some comments/questions

Regarding travel duration, I think this information is irrelevant in the route 
relation, which is only a route.

The duration depends on what's walking the route (Paris/NYC with A380 = approx 
7h and Paris/NYC with Concorde used to be lasting 3h)

From/to should be derived from relation members (role=start/stop). But it may 
be desirable to have these data for display or labelling.

What if several operators use the route ? Will we have to create as many routes 
as operators ?

I use to believe flight routes aren't fixed paths but a bunch of paths which 
may vary depending on weather, air pressure, etc...

Is this really mapable in OSM ?

You may give a few details more in the Route tracking chapter

All the best

François

François Lacombe

fl dot infosreseaux At gmail dot com
www.infos-reseaux.com<http://www.infos-reseaux.com>
@<http://www.twitter.com/InfosReseaux>InfosReseaux<http://www.twitter.com/InfosReseaux>

2016-11-22 15:41 GMT+01:00 Michael Tsang 
mailto:mikl...@gmail.com>@gmail.com<mailto:mikl...@gmail.com>>:

Dear all,

I have proposed an extension to the public transport schema to include flights.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/flight_route

Basically the flight route is mapped just like ferry routes in my proposal.

Michael
--
Sent from KMail

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


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


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

Re: [Tagging] railway=rail vs. railway=subway

[Michael Tsang]

> I don't follow this.  light rail is about the cars being lighter and
> perhaps the rails being built to a lower weight limit, and it isn't
> about grade crossings.  Around me there is real rail with fll-sized
> enginers and is fully freight capable that has level crossings.
> Definteliy not light_rail because of crossings.

I should clarify that the level crossing of light rails should be not actively 
protected, i.e. do not have fences which come down before the train passes. 
One of the major criteria between tram / light rail and metro / full-size 
train is the ability to run within other traffic.

Do you have any examples where a freight train have to wait for a red light at 
a street intersection, or runs on a stretch of street with motor traffic?

Michael
-- 
Sent from KMail


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

Re: [Tagging] amenity=taxi on highway

[Michael Tsang]

On Wednesday 23 November 2016 14:08:14 Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 2016-11-22 16:43 GMT+01:00 Michael Tsang :
> > Dear all,
> > 
> > amenity=taxi is defined as a place where taxis wait for passengers. Does
> > that
> > mean it should be placed on a highway where taxis can access?
> 
> no, it is used (where applicable) for "taxi stations", typically these are
> a bunch of parking lots reserved for taxis (with often taxis waiting there
> for customers, sometimes with a dedicated "taxi telephone" or similar).

I have a question then, actually the waiting area for taxis is directly on the 
street, with no physical barrier between the waiting area and the carriageway. 
In this case, should the node be placed on the highway then?

Michael

-- 
Sent from KMail


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

Re: [Tagging] railway=rail vs. railway=subway

[Michael Tsang]

On Tuesday 22 November 2016 19:10:39 Bill Ricker wrote:
> 
> Oh really. Boston MBTA green line is a subway line that extends onto
> surface streets. Not full rail gauge iirc (though other lines are) and
> neither surface or tunnel curves could handle freight cars. The surface
> trolley portions that run down boulevard median are direct line extensions
> of the tunnel line but do have grade crossings at boulevard stoplights.
Then I think it should be railway=light_rail
-- 
Sent from KMail


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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Through service

[Michael Tsang]

Dear all,

The proposal public transport "through service" is open for voting:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/through_service

Michael
-- 
Sent from KMail


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

[Tagging] amenity=taxi on highway

[Michael Tsang]

Dear all,

amenity=taxi is defined as a place where taxis wait for passengers. Does that 
mean it should be placed on a highway where taxis can access?

Michael
-- 
Sent from KMail


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

Re: [Tagging] railway=rail vs. railway=subway

[Michael Tsang]

On Tuesday 22 November 2016 11:28:00 jc86035 wrote:
> Should a commuter rail system with rapid transit frequency but main
> line-standard tracks be tagged as railway=subway or railway=rail?
> 
> In Hong Kong, the MTR metro system has an "urban" set of DC 1432mm-gauge
> lines, and another set of AC standard gauge lines (East Rail Line, West
> Rail Line and Ma On Shan Line) connected to the Guangzhou–Shenzhen railway.

"Use railway=rail for full sized passenger or freight trains in the standard 
gauge for the country or state.
railway=rail is the largest railway classification, for full-blown full-sized 
railways."

My interpretation of the above rule is that, if the section of the railway is 
capable for running long distance trains, it should be tagged as railway=rail. 
Therefore, East Rail Line in Hong Kong is definitely railway=rail because long 
distance and freight trains also run on it. In my opinion, even the metro-only 
sections of East Rail Line where long distance trains do not run should be 
tagged as railway=rail because they belongs to the same railway with the same 
standard.

Normally I consider the nature of the train running on the railway to get the 
appropriate railway=* value.

- Railway with long distance and commuter trains: railway=rail
- Railway with metro services only: railway=subway
- Railway with street intersection: railway=light_rail
- Railway mainly with tracks embedded on the street: railway=tram

> 
> One of the standard gauge lines (Ma On Shan Line: short distance between
> stations and low speed) was always tagged with railway=subway, but some
> time ago I retagged the West Rail Line (commuter rail with long distance
> between stations) with railway=subway, as well as the sections of the
> East Rail Line without intercity train service (without asking anyone).
> Should the lines be retagged as railway=rail, since they're not really
> subway/metro lines?

For Ma On Shan Line and West Rail Line, there is a bit ambiguity. The trains 
running on them are full sized passenger trains in the standard gauge, but 
they are metro trains in all aspects, even all the technical standards are 
comparable to main line standards. In fact, West Rail Line was planned to have 
long-distance trains and freight trains at the beginning, if this were to 
become true, it would be re-tagged as railway=rail. However, the plan was 
dropped and in the forseeable future only metro services would be run on West 
Rail Line so I prefer railway=subway in this case. Ma On Shan Line is designed 
to have only metro service so it is definitely railway=subway, but because it 
will be connected with West Rail Line so it was built to same full size 
technical standard.

Even the situation of East Rail Line is not completely clear. In 1983, East 
Rail Line was a relatively infrequent (20-minute headway in outer suburbs) 
commuter rail service using British national railway standard, comparable to 
S-Bahns in Germany. If OpenStreetMap existed at that time, the train service 
itself would be tagged as route=train. However, the frequency became metro 
standard in early 1990s, the trains renewed to metro standard between 1996 to 
2000, and joined the metro network in 2007, so it is tagged as route=subway 
now.

In fact, the boundary between railway=rail, subway, and light_rail is not 
always clear. There exist some trains in elsewhere in the world which can run 
on mail line railways (railway=rail), inside metro network (railway=subway), 
and even on the road waiting red lights with motor vehicles 
(railway=light_rail).

Michael
-- 
Sent from KMail


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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - flight route

[Michael Tsang]

Dear all,

I have proposed an extension to the public transport schema to include flights.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/flight_route

Basically the flight route is mapped just like ferry routes in my proposal.

Michael
-- 
Sent from KMail


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

[Tagging] Light rail station tagging

[Michael Tsang]

Dear all,

I tagged the public_transport=stop_position's on the light rail network in my 
region with railway=tram_stop, because the wiki mentions that "Insert a node 
with railway=tram_stop and name=* on the tram track (railway=tram) at the 
position where the stop is located." However, the light rail stations actually 
resembles "railway halts" (the layout is exactly the same as the image in the 
wiki, with only the station building missing), and I have also put a 
"railway=halt" (or "railway=station" for stations with switches) in the 
middle.

This changeset attracted a comment "railway=tram_stop is probably a bad idea 
for the stop positions, causes rendering mess. Maybe better just to use 
railway=stop". What's the generally accepted practice for tagging light rail 
stations which resembles "railway stations" or "railway halts"?

Michael
-- 
Sent from KMail


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

Re: [Tagging] stop area hierarchy

[Michael Tsang]

On Tuesday 15 November 2016 19:50:14 Tijmen Stam wrote:
> 
> Whoa, that's quite different from how I interpret the stop_area. For
> example, for a "normal" bus stop, this would include 4 nodes (or 2 nodes
> and 2 ways): a platform and a stop_position for each direction.

In Hong Kong, we always consider bus stops in opposite directions different bus 
stops (including the information systems of bus companies). So, for a pair of 
bus stops for different directions, even they have the same name and share the 
same stop_position, I make 2 stop_areas, one for each direction, possibly 
sharing the stop_position. We seldom consider "crossing the road to change 
bus" to be the same as transferring at the same spot (原站轉車), as in the case of 
platforms immediately adjacent to the other on the same side of the road.

Though, in bus stations, we consider all platforms and stop_positions to be 
the same stop_area, even they are on different tracks (車坑), again, the same 
practice as bus companies.

Michael

-- 
Sent from KMail


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

[Tagging] stop area hierarchy

[Michael Tsang]

Dear all,


The wiki page of public_transport=stop_area includes a sentence "For larger 
interchanges it is often appropriate to organise stop areas into a hierarchy. 
Heathrow Airport would for example consist of 5 terminals, a coach station and 
two underground stations with many associated facilities." but I don't know how 
to make the hierarchy.


For example, in my town there is an interchange with a metro station with two 
platforms, light rail station with six platforms and two associated bus 
stations. Currently there are four stop_areas, one for metro station, one for 
light rail station, one for each bus station. How to make that hierarachy?


Michael


Sent from Outlook.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of Country Names

[Michael Tsang]

On Tuesday 25 October 2016 17:02:05 Sven Geggus wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> in our localized German map style we try to render Country names in German
> with local name in parenthesis.
> 
> This works fine for a lot of countries. An example would be Thailand:
> Thailand (ประเทศไทย)
> 
> or (more readable for westerners) France:
> Frankreich (France)
> 
> Unfortunately there are some countries where this will not work:
> 
> Ägypten (Egypt مصر)
> 
> So this is where the tagging discussion starts.
> 
> I consider this a bad example of tagging for the renderer.
> 
> English is not an official language of Egypt thus the string "Egypt" is
> simply invalid in the countries name tag.
> 
> What I consider valid would be the countires name in all of its official
> langages.
> 
> Thus the right one would be:
> Ägypten (مصر)
> 
> So I propose a correction of all country names to names into official
> langages of the respective countries only and to remove all english names.

I believe that country names, as with all place names, should be tagged with 
the primary / official / most commonly used language on the ground, according 
to 
the customs of that particular country. If English is not officially / commonly 
used in that country, it should not appear on the main tag. For a multilingual 
community, the name tag should list the multilingual names, in the standard 
order of that country.

For example, the name tag for China should only be "中国" , which is Chinese, 
the only official language used country-wise. However, for Hong Kong and Macau, 
as both Chinese and English/Portuguese have equal official status, the name tag 
should be tagged bilingual as "香港 Hong Kong" and "澳門 Macau" respectively. 

Michael
-- 
Sent from KMail

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

[Tagging] Abusing name tags on type=route

[Michael Tsang]

Dear all,

According to the talk page 
(http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Public_Transport#name_as_.22prose_description.22.3F),
 
the use of name=* key on a public transport route is considered an abuse 
(unless the route has a real name). However, without abusing the name tag, the 
life is difficult for both the mapper and the user. Consider the following 
metro 
route_master:
http://openstreetmap.org/relation/272132
There are, in total, 27 different variants of the line in the real world (2 
directions times 2 sets times 2 different branches with multiple short runs all 
under the name East Rail Line), mapped with different combinations of from=*, 
to=* and via=* keys. Without abusing the name tag users have difficulty 
selecting the correct service, for example in JOSM and OsmAnd.

How should we cope with the situation like this?

Michael
-- 
Sent from KMail

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Through service

[Michael Tsang]

On Saturday 17 September 2016 12:13:49 Michael Reichert wrote:
> Hi Michael,
> 
> Am 2016-09-14 um 05:10 schrieb Michael Tsang:
> > RFC: Through service
> > 
> > This proposes a kind of relation to associate different public transport
> > services to become a through service, i.e. the vehicles run through the
> > services sequentially, allowing passengers staying on board.
> > 
> > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/through_service
> 
> I dislike the tagging you propose. A relation with type=route route=*
> should contain only nodes and ways. Relations should only be member if
> they are multipolygon relations. If you want to link multiple route
> relations, please use a master route relation.
> type=route_master + route_master=bus/train/bicycle
> 
> Best regards
> 
> Michael

I don't think using a route_master is appropriate for this situation. 
route_master is for grouping related but different services together (e.g. the 
outbound and return journeys of a bus route, and the weekdays / holidays 
variant of that route), but this situation is completely opposite, about a 
single service composed of segments of different refs.

Michael
-- 
Sent from KMail

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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Through service

[Michael Tsang]

RFC: Through service

This proposes a kind of relation to associate different public transport 
services to become a through service, i.e. the vehicles run through the 
services sequentially, allowing passengers staying on board.  

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/through_service
-- 
Sent from KMail

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

Re: [Tagging] Public transport routes with multiple reference numbers

[Michael Tsang]

On Tuesday 13 September 2016 09:32:19 Jo wrote:
> As far as I'm concerned these are 2 separate route relations. It doesn't
> really matter passengers can remain seated. When something changes like the
> ref number it's a different route for the organisers. I would expect it's
> also shown differently on schedules.

The following is a photo of that departure:

http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/hongkongbus/images/f/f3/K58_K53_Special_201601.JPG/revision/latest?cb=20160112144510&path-prefix=zh

The electronic number plate is K58 at the time where the photo is taken, but 
it would change to K53 in the middle of the route. However, there is a piece 
of paper telling the passenger that this bus is a "through service".

Michael


-- 
Sent from KMail

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

Re: [Tagging] Public transport routes with multiple reference numbers

[Michael Tsang]

On Friday 05 August 2016 02:15:35 Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

> > 3. There is a service, due to operational reasons, identified by two
> > different numbers. However, the two different numbers are used in
> > different segment of the service, but in fact, they belongs to the same
> > service (i.e. passengers can get a ticket and board the vehicle on the
> > segment with the first number, and alight at the end of the segment with
> > the second number without intermediate alighting or additional payment).
> > This is the case with train route Z806/Z803 from Zhaoqing to Kowloon,
> > where the number Z806 is used on the segment from Zhaoqing to Guangzhou,
> > and Z803 is used on the segment from Guangzhou to Kowloon (i.e. it can be
> > treated as a through service).
> 
> I would make 2 relations. Would be nice to invent a way to say that z806
> will always become z803 (link the relations), but I don't know if there is
> already something in use for this

Now I encounter a bus route like this:

A scheduled departure first runs the route K58, but in the middle the route, it 
 
enters the bus terminus of the route K53, change the route display from K58 to 
K53 without unloading passengers (i.e. passengers can remain on board from the 
segment on route K58 to the segment on route K53), and runs the remaining 
journey on route K53. What's the proper way of mapping this route?

Michael

-- 
Sent from KMail

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

Re: [Tagging] Minibus routes

[Michael Tsang]

On Wednesday 07 September 2016 23:51:12 Éric Gillet wrote:

> If there are platforms (marks on the ground, pole or shelter) made for
> waiting, entering and leaving the vehicle, they should be mapped as
> nodes/ways.
> 
> In the case such platforms are used for minibuses, I think they are
> standard bus stops with both platform and stop_position and should be
> included in the route relation. Another criteria to think of them as usual
> PT stops is whether they are named or not.
> 
> Éric

On some minibus routes, there are platforms (i.e. poles placed near the road) 
along the route but they are just for the convenience of the passengers. 
However, in most of the cases, these platforms have no legal effect and 
passengers can actually wait for the minibus along the route, whether there is 
a platform or not (especially in rural areas). When alighting the minibus, the 
passenger just calls out the place to the driver (e.g. "bus stop", "junction", 
"convenience store", "no. 23", etc.).

Does that mean I should just map what exist on the ground, without regarding 
where the passengers enter / leave the minibus?

Michael

-- 
Sent from KMail

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

[Tagging] Minibus routes

[Michael Tsang]

Dear all,

Minibuses have fixed route but not fixed stops (i.e. you can catch it anywhere 
along the route). When I map those routes, should I put in the platforms and 
route without putting in any stop position?

Michael
-- 
Sent from KMail

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

[Tagging] bus route with reversing

[Michael Tsang]

Hi all,

I am mapping bus routes in my city. There is a route where the buses need 
reversing in order to enter the bus terminus. Is there a "standard" role in 
the route relation which denotes that the bus is to reverse through that 
segment of the road?

Michael
-- 
Sent from KMail

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

[Tagging] Bus bays

[Michael Tsang]

Dear all,

What is the commonly-used practice to denote if there is a bus bay at a 
public_transport=stop_position and bus=yes? On two-way streets, how do you 
denote which direction of buses is the bus bay for?

Michael
-- 
Sent from KMail

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

Re: [Tagging] Öpnvkarte (was: Disused bus stops)

[Michael Tsang]

On Thursday 18 August 2016 09:25:14 Tijmen Stam wrote:

> 
> P.S. Anyone knows what's wrong with openbusmap.org? Updates usually
> appear within 5 minutes, but now have been lacking for 3 days.
> 
 
It seems to be frozen since 16 August according to my records

Michael
-- 
Sent from KMail

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

[Tagging] Disused bus stops

[Michael Tsang]

Dear all,

Should I place public_transport=platform on disused bus stops where no buses 
serve, but the infrastructure is still in place? What if the stop_position is 
marked on the ground, but no corresponding platform next to the highway?

Michael
-- 
Sent from KMail

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

[Tagging] Public transport routes with multiple reference numbers

[Michael Tsang]

Dear all,

How should I fill in the ref=* tag for public transport routes with multiple 
reference numbers, in each of the following cases?

1. There is a service identified by three different numbers, while in fact the 
three numbers belong to the same service with completely no differences. This 
is the case with minibus routes 52A/54A/56A in New Territories, where two 
operators jointly dispatch minibuses onto these routes, sometimes with number 
52A, sometimes with 54A, and sometimes with 56A. However, they are identical 
services.

Is using semicolon in the ref=* tag a good idea?

2. There is a service identified by two different numbers, where the two 
numbers 
are always used simultaneously. This is the case with Shenzhen bus routes 
M215-M218, where both numbers are always displayed side-by-side in bus stops 
and on the number plates of the buses. They are almost never used 
individually.

3. There is a service, due to operational reasons, identified by two different 
numbers. However, the two different numbers are used in different segment of 
the 
service, but in fact, they belongs to the same service (i.e. passengers can 
get a ticket and board the vehicle on the segment with the first number, and 
alight at the end of the segment with the second number without intermediate 
alighting or additional payment). This is the case with train route Z806/Z803 
from Zhaoqing to Kowloon, where the number Z806 is used on the segment from 
Zhaoqing to Guangzhou, and Z803 is used on the segment from Guangzhou to 
Kowloon (i.e. it can be treated as a through service).

Regards,
Michael
-- 
Sent from KMail

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

Re: [Tagging] bus networks in Hong Kong

[Michael Tsang]

On Tuesday 02 August 2016 16:30:02 Frank Villaro-Dixon wrote:

> To me, `operator` is the company that drives the bus (say, "Bus drivers
> Ltd") whereas `network` targets the global entity/company/consortium for
> the group of lines.
> 
> Generally speaking, a ticket bought on a network could be used on all the
> lines of the said network (even if the `operator` is different) of course
> following the network's rules.

There is no notion of "ticket" for buses in Hong Kong except on a very 
restricted set of routes. We always pay by cash or store-value card (where the 
fare is deducted mathematically) on boarding and/or alighting.

Michael

-- 
Sent from KMail

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

Re: [Tagging] bus networks in Hong Kong

[Michael Tsang]

On Monday 01 August 2016 23:55:56 Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> sent from a phone
> 
> > Il giorno 01 ago 2016, alle ore 17:51, Michael Tsang 
> > ha scritto:
> > 
> > What should I type in for the network=* tag for the bus routes such that
> > it is least surprising and least confusing for data users?
> You have written a lot about operators, but these go into the operator tag
> on the relation, the network is more about fares I think: if you can use
> the same kind of tickets it's the same network.

Cash and card can be used across the whole territory across different networks
-- 
Sent from KMail

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

[Tagging] bus networks in Hong Kong

[Michael Tsang]

Hi all,

I have trouble filling the network=* key on bus routes in Hong Kong.

According to the wiki page, "On route relations[1] for bus, railway, and tram 
service routes[2], 
this key indicates the bus system, if applicable. There is currently no 
consensus whether the 
values should be abbreviated or not. " However, as a user, I am not sure how 
the "bus 
system" (i.e. name of the network) is defined here.

I believe a common consensus is that, within a network, a ref=* number should 
be enough to 
identify a service. Therefore, the bus routes in Hong Kong cannot be considered 
to be a single 
network since there are different route 1 buses on Hong Kong Island, in Kowloon 
and on 
Lantau Island. This worked in the past, because Hong Kong Island, Kowloon and 
Lantau Island 
were separate entities (not connected by roads) before 1973. There were, in 
total, 3 bus 
networks across Hong Kong, clearly defined: Hong Kong Island (operated by CMB), 
Kowloon & 
NT (operated by KMB) and Lantau Island (operated by what became NLB today)

In legal terms, the bus routes are organised into "franchises", where each 
franchise is 
operated by a single company with designated fleet of buses. There is a 
separate legal 
document describing the official routing and the fare table for each franchise 
(which may be 
different between franchises). There are, in total, 6 franchises in Hong Kong 
(2 by Citybus, 1 
by NWFB, KMB, NLB, LWB), which encompass all bus routes. Therefore, it may be 
logical to 
use the name of the franchise for the "bus network". However, in reality, the 
same bus route 
may belong simultaneously to 2 franchises, for example, most cross-harbour 
routes such as 
101, 102, etc., where they are jointly operated by the operators of those 
franchises.

In terms of official passenger information (including booklets, websites and 
smartphone apps), 
there are 3 networks as seen from the user's perspective, offered by the 
respective operators: 
Citybus & NWFB (the operations of these 2 companies are integrated); KMB & LW 
(ditto), and 
NLB. For example, you can search for routes 1, 118 and 796C, but not 296C in 
Citybus & 
NWFB website; and you can search for routes 1, 118, 296C but not 796C in KMB 
website. 
However, route 1 are different between the result of these websites (because in 
reality both 
companies operates a different route 1), but route 118 are the same between the 
results 
(because in reality route 118 is jointly operated by both companies).

In terms of geographic location, it is logical to divide the whole Hong Kong 
into the different 
networks, each without duplicate numbers inside:
* Hong Kong Island
* Kowloon & NT
* Lantau Island
* Cross-harbour (between Hong Kong Island and Kowloon)
* Airport and N Lantau External (between Airport / Lantau and the rest of the 
territory)
However, people seldom explicitly refer to bus routes like "Hong Kong Island 
route 1", etc. 
because the qualifier is implicit in real world usage. For example, if you are 
told, in Stanley, to 
take number 6 bus to the terminus, ride the Star Ferry, and take number 6 bus 
to visit 
Nathan Road, you would know that they refer to different buses, one on Hong 
Kong Island, 
the other in Kowloon. In the rare circumstances where the qualifier is not 
implicitly known, 
most people would use the name of operator (e.g. Citybus route 6) for that.

What should I type in for the network=* tag for the bus routes such that it is 
least surprising 
and least confusing for data users?

Michael
-- 
Sent from KMail


[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route
[2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Public_transport#Public_transport_routes
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - learner driver

[Michael Tsang]

Voting for learner driver proposal:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/learner_driver

Michael
-- 
Sent from KMail

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - learner driver

[Michael Tsang]

On Wednesday 29 June 2016 16:55:08 jeffrey.rho...@geogr.uni-giessen.de wrote:
> 
> So even countries that have some kind of learner license don't necessarily
> have any restrictions on roads concerning them, hence I think the tag as a
> general tag would be problematic, since it could cause confusion in
> different countries. 
> 
> And the tag does seem a bit unneeded since in the countries it applies,
> those aren't specific restrictions as far as I know, but general ones. So
> e.g. in country x you are not permitted on Motorways with a learner
> license, hence the tag is not needed if the Motorways are correctly tagged
> as such in the first place.

I live in Hong Kong and the legal framework is below:

The learner licence is legally required for a learner to learn to drive on the 
road (because driving without a licence is an offence). Once a learner has got 
the learner licence, he can legally drive on the road under the following 
restrictive conditions:
- in specified times
- with an instructor (i.e. with the corresponding instructor licence) aside 
(except motorcycles)
- on a vehicle that the instructor can interfere the braking system (except 
motorcycles)

The learner can drive on all public roads under the above restrictions, except
- motorways
- roads where a road sign forbidding learner exists (that's *exactly* why this 
tag is needed).

Michael
-- 
Sent from KMail

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - learner driver

[Michael Tsang]

On Tuesday 28 June 2016 14:59:18 Colin Smale wrote:
> It's not a question of common sense, it's a question of law... Countries and
> states may differ, but they will all have a default plus a way of
> indicating any exceptions. In OSM we tend to omit values that are default;
> however there is always a way to make the default explicit if one requires.
> This is not the place to discuss the merits of various traffic laws.
> //colin

Proposal updated according to the discussion.
-- 
Sent from KMail

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - learner driver

[Michael Tsang]

On Tuesday 28 June 2016 04:12:37 Paul Johnson wrote:

> 
> I can see this as potentially useful, except for one part:
> 
> For values, see access =*.
> 
> > The default is learner_driver
> > =yes
> >  > action=edit&redlink=1>, with the exception of highway
> > =motorway
> >  and highway
> > =motorway_link
> > , where
> > the default is learner_driver
> > =no
> >  > ction=edit&redlink=1> .
> 
> In general, the access restrictions globally for motorways and
> motorway_links is so varied as to have no rational default other than
> access=yes unless otherwise explicitly tagged.  However, I would go more
> modal-specific, though.  There are some situations in some places (I don't
> know the exact specifics or I'd have already tagged it or at least floated
> a note for someone else to take a look at if it's not likely I'm going to
> get to it soon) where learners are OK, except people who are learning to
> drive a truck.  So, :learner_driver=* might be better.

I agree on the point that mode:learner_driver=* is better, but, however, isn't 
it common sense that learners are not allowed on motorways? Can you give me 
some regions where learners are, by default, allowed on motorways?

Michael
-- 
Sent from KMail

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - learner driver

[Michael Tsang]

  

> Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 01:12:35 -0700


> From: mark+...@carnildo.com


> To: tagging@openstreetmap.org


> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - learner driver


> 


> On Fri, 24 Jun 2016 00:00:13 +0800


> Michael Tsang  wrote:


> 


> > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/learner_driver


> > 


> > The proposed feature learner driver is to tag the legal access of a


> > highway by a vehicle driven by a learner driver. It is similar to


> > Key:access#Transport mode restrictions for tagging the legal access


> > by transport mode.


> > 


> 


> Are these restrictions something you'd see on signs, or is it something


> you find by looking at the local law books?


> 


As seen on that specific sign shown on the proposal page (it literally means 
"learner driver prohibited")







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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - learner driver

[Michael Tsang]

  Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - learner 
driver  
  On Thursday 23 June 2016 21:32:04 Greg Troxel wrote:
> Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> writes:
> > On 6/24/2016 2:00 AM, Michael Tsang wrote:
> >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/learner_driver
> >> 
> >> The proposed feature *learner driver* is to tag the legal access of
> >> a highway by a vehicle driven by a learner driver. It is similar to
> >> Key:access#Transport mode restrictions
> >> <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access#Transport_mode_restriction
> >> s>
> >> for tagging the legal access by transport mode.
> > 
> > Does not make human sense.
> > Might be better tagged access:learner_driver=no/yes ? This clearly
> > identifies it as an access function.
> 
> And, it would be good to first thing about how access rights for learner
> drivers differs from regular drivers.   I can't think of any difference
> around me (although learners are required to have an adult real driver
> with them, and not allowed to drive late at night, etc.).
> I wonder, if it's the case that learners can drive on most roads, if it
> would be better to tag the roads that they are banned from (but regular
> drivers can use). vs the roads they can use.
 
Learners can drive on most roads, therefore, the default is yes, with the 
exception of motorways where the default is no.

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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - learner driver

[Michael Tsang]

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/learner_driver

The proposed feature learner driver is to tag the legal access of a highway by 
a vehicle driven by a learner driver. It is similar to Key:access#Transport 
mode restrictions for tagging the legal access by transport mode.


Sent from Outlook.com ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging