Re: [Tagging] Antwort: Re: Aerialway stations

[Yves]

I'm not a natural speaker, head like in where the aerialway is heading.
I propose the second scheme because of the duplicate meaning with ele in the 
definition, and because the aim of an aerialway could be lower than mid. 
Yves 

Le 14 août 2020 17:32:08 GMT+02:00, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging 
 a écrit :
>I strongly prefer up/top over head.
>
>At least for me (not representative,
>not a native speaker), head = up
>is not clear.
>
>14 Aug 2020, 17:05 by em...@daniel-korn.de:
>
>> Am 14.08.2020 um 16:37 schrieb yvecai:
>>  
>>
>>>
>>> I would propose, if you want to use altitude as a definition:
>>>
>>>
 bottom: the end station with the lower altitude
 up: the end station with the higher altitude
 mid: any station, not being a base or a head  station, 
 irrespective of the altitude

>>>
>>> Or, alternatively one that does not compete with the ele tag  and 
>>> carry a destination meaning (my preference):
>>>
>>>
 base: the 'valley' station, usually with the lower  altitude
 head: the 'mountain' or 'top' station, usually  with the higher 
 altitude
 mid: any station, not being a base or a head  station.


>>>
>>> aewrialway:station has my preference
>>>
>>>
>>> Yves
>>>
>>>
>> I like both. Any other people here with a peference for one of Yves'
>> schemes?
>>___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Antwort: Re: Aerialway stations

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

I strongly prefer up/top over head.

At least for me (not representative,
not a native speaker), head = up
is not clear.

14 Aug 2020, 17:05 by em...@daniel-korn.de:

> Am 14.08.2020 um 16:37 schrieb yvecai:
>  
>
>>
>> I would propose, if you want to use altitude as a definition:
>>
>>
>>> bottom: the end station with the lower altitude
>>> up: the end station with the higher altitude
>>> mid: any station, not being a base or a head  station, irrespective 
>>> of the altitude
>>>
>>
>> Or, alternatively one that does not compete with the ele tag  and 
>> carry a destination meaning (my preference):
>>
>>
>>> base: the 'valley' station, usually with the lower  altitude
>>> head: the 'mountain' or 'top' station, usually  with the higher 
>>> altitude
>>> mid: any station, not being a base or a head  station.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> aewrialway:station has my preference
>>
>>
>> Yves
>>
>>
> I like both. Any other people here with a peference for one of Yves'
> schemes?
>___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Antwort: Re: Aerialway stations

[Colin Smale]

We really should avoid words like "usually. " If there exceptions to the 
elevation critérium, or if other factors are significant in working out the 
correct value, then this also needs documenting...



On 14 August 2020 17:05:37 CEST, dktue  wrote:
>Am 14.08.2020 um 16:37 schrieb yvecai:
>>
>> I would propose, if you want to use altitude as a definition:
>>
>> bottom: the end station with the lower altitude
>> up: the end station with the higher altitude
>> mid: any station, not being a base or a head station,
>irrespective
>> of the altitude
>>
>> Or, alternatively one that does not compete with the ele tag and
>carry 
>> a destination meaning (my preference):
>>
>> base: the 'valley' station, usually with the lower altitude
>> head: the 'mountain' or 'top' station, usually with the higher
>> altitude
>> mid: any station, not being a base or a head station.
>>
>> aewrialway:station has my preference
>>
>> Yves
>>
>I like both. Any other people here with a peference for one of Yves' 
>schemes?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Antwort: Re: Aerialway stations

[dktue]

Am 14.08.2020 um 16:37 schrieb yvecai:


I would propose, if you want to use altitude as a definition:

bottom: the end station with the lower altitude
up: the end station with the higher altitude
mid: any station, not being a base or a head station, irrespective
of the altitude

Or, alternatively one that does not compete with the ele tag and carry 
a destination meaning (my preference):


base: the 'valley' station, usually with the lower altitude
head: the 'mountain' or 'top' station, usually with the higher
altitude
mid: any station, not being a base or a head station.

aewrialway:station has my preference

Yves

I like both. Any other people here with a peference for one of Yves' 
schemes?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Antwort: Re: Aerialway stations

[yvecai]

I would propose, if you want to use altitude as a definition:

   bottom: the end station with the lower altitude
   up: the end station with the higher altitude
   mid: any station, not being a base or a head station, irrespective
   of the altitude

Or, alternatively one that does not compete with the ele tag and carry a 
destination meaning (my preference):


   base: the 'valley' station, usually with the lower altitude
   head: the 'mountain' or 'top' station, usually with the higher altitude
   mid: any station, not being a base or a head station.

aewrialway:station has my preference

Yves

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

Re: [Tagging] Antwort: Re: Aerialway stations

[dktue]

Am 14.08.2020 um 14:51 schrieb Colin Smale:


On 2020-08-14 13:55, dktue wrote:



Am 14.08.2020 um 13:34 schrieb Colin Smale:


On 2020-08-14 13:14, dktue wrote:

Am 14.08.2020 um 13:11 schrieb Yves:

Base / mid / head?

I'm definitely open for that! :-)

OK, two people agree on the strings to use, but what are the 
semantics? What sentence would go in the wiki to describe a) when to 
use the value and b) what the value implies once it is in the OSM data?

It sounds like it might be something like:
base: the end station with the lower altitude
head: the end station with the higher altitude
mid: any station, not being a base or a head station, irrespective 
of the altitude

note: based purely on altitude, not arrival/departure inclination

That sounds perfectly reasoneable to me!


As to which key to use, how about aerialway:station={base,mid,head}?
I suggested station={base,mid,head} because we're using 
aerial=station and then it seemed natural to go with station=* but 
I'd be definitely happy with aerialway:station=*.


I suggested aerialway:station=* precisely to avoid overloading 
station=* (different semantics under different circumstances).


As a native English speaker by the way I would suggest that "top" and 
"bottom" might be simpler instead of "base" and "head". Using easy 
words means you don't need to explain it to people who either don't 
know the words, or know them in a different context.



Well then it would be aerialway:station={bottom,mid,top}, right?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Antwort: Re: Aerialway stations

[Colin Smale]

On 2020-08-14 13:55, dktue wrote:

> Am 14.08.2020 um 13:34 schrieb Colin Smale: 
> 
> On 2020-08-14 13:14, dktue wrote: 
> Am 14.08.2020 um 13:11 schrieb Yves: Base / mid / head? I'm definitely open 
> for that! :-)

OK, two people agree on the strings to use, but what are the semantics?
What sentence would go in the wiki to describe a) when to use the value
and b) what the value implies once it is in the OSM data? 

It sounds like it might be something like: 

base: the end station with the lower altitude 
head: the end station with the higher altitude 
mid: any station, not being a base or a head station, irrespective of
the altitude 

note: based purely on altitude, not arrival/departure inclination 
  That sounds perfectly reasoneable to me!

> As to which key to use, how about aerialway:station={base,mid,head}?
 I suggested station={base,mid,head} because we're using aerial=station
and then it seemed natural to go with station=* but I'd be definitely
happy with aerialway:station=*.

I suggested aerialway:station=* precisely to avoid overloading station=*
(different semantics under different circumstances). 

As a native English speaker by the way I would suggest that "top" and
"bottom" might be simpler instead of "base" and "head". Using easy words
means you don't need to explain it to people who either don't know the
words, or know them in a different context.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Antwort: Re: Aerialway stations

[dktue]

Am 14.08.2020 um 13:34 schrieb Colin Smale:


On 2020-08-14 13:14, dktue wrote:


Am 14.08.2020 um 13:11 schrieb Yves:

Base / mid / head?

I'm definitely open for that! :-)
OK, two people agree on the strings to use, but what are the 
semantics? What sentence would go in the wiki to describe a) when to 
use the value and b) what the value implies once it is in the OSM data?

It sounds like it might be something like:
base: the end station with the lower altitude
head: the end station with the higher altitude
mid: any station, not being a base or a head station, irrespective of 
the altitude

note: based purely on altitude, not arrival/departure inclination

That sounds perfectly reasoneable to me!


As to which key to use, how about aerialway:station={base,mid,head}?
I suggested station={base,mid,head} because we're using aerial=station 
and then it seemed natural to go with station=* but I'd be definitely 
happy with aerialway:station=*.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Antwort: Re: Aerialway stations

[Colin Smale]

On 2020-08-14 13:14, dktue wrote:

> Am 14.08.2020 um 13:11 schrieb Yves: 
> 
>> Base / mid / head?
> I'm definitely open for that! :-)

OK, two people agree on the strings to use, but what are the semantics?
What sentence would go in the wiki to describe a) when to use the value
and b) what the value implies once it is in the OSM data? 

It sounds like it might be something like: 

base: the end station with the lower altitude 
head: the end station with the higher altitude 
mid: any station, not being a base or a head station, irrespective of
the altitude 

note: based purely on altitude, not arrival/departure inclination 

As to which key to use, how about aerialway:station={base,mid,head}?___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Antwort: Re: Aerialway stations

[dktue]

Am 14.08.2020 um 13:11 schrieb Yves:

Base / mid / head?

I'm definitely open for that! :-)

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

Re: [Tagging] Antwort: Re: Aerialway stations

[Yves]

Base / mid / head? 

Le 14 août 2020 10:59:11 GMT+02:00, dktue  a écrit :
>
>Am 14.08.2020 um 10:53 schrieb yvecai:
>> On 14.08.20 10:40, dktue wrote:
 I would define it as:

 lower_station: station that has the lowest elevation (exact 
 elevation is not necessary to know, it's obvious)
 upper_station: station that has the highest elevation
 mid_station: any other station
>>> I want to add: At least in Germany, Switzerland and Austria there are 
>>> well-established german words which you often find in the name of the 
>>> stations themselves:
>>>
>>> * "Talstation" ("valley station")
>>> * "Bergstation" ("mountain station"), sometimes also "Gipfelstation" 
>>> ("summit station")
>>> * "Mittelstation" ("mid station")
>>>
>>> There should be a machine-readeably tagging to get this information 
>>> that is so often encoded in the name. That's why I'm suggesting this 
>>> tagging.
>>>
>>>
>> Then why not valley / mid / mountain as values ? If the mountain 
>> station is lower than the mid- one, there is no discussion.
>I think the germany word "Talstation" ("valley station") is not flawless 
>as a Talstation might not be in the valley but in the middle of the 
>mountain. I think in the german language "Talstation" refers to the 
>lowest station of an aerialway. That's why I think lower/mid/upper are 
>better suited.
>> But also, my feeling is that it's more defined by the destination of 
>> the stop rather than a property of the aerialway node in question: you 
>> expect maybe a restaurant in the 'mountain station', more rarely in 
>> the 'valley station', you also expect to put your skis on or start 
>> riding your bike in the former, etc ...
>>
>> There is more to a 'mountina station' than being up/down.
>That true but I think there are different tags to add this information.
>
>___
>Tagging mailing list
>Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Antwort: Re: Aerialway stations

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

14 Aug 2020, 10:53 by y...@mailbox.org:

> On 14.08.20 10:40, dktue wrote:
>
>>> I would define it as:
>>>
>>> lower_station: station that has the lowest elevation (exact elevation is 
>>> not necessary to know, it's obvious)
>>> upper_station: station that has the highest elevation
>>> mid_station: any other station
>>>
>> I want to add: At least in Germany, Switzerland and Austria there are 
>> well-established german words which you often find in the name of the 
>> stations themselves:
>>
>> * "Talstation" ("valley station")
>> * "Bergstation" ("mountain station"), sometimes also "Gipfelstation" 
>> ("summit station")
>> * "Mittelstation" ("mid station")
>>
>> There should be a machine-readeably tagging to get this information that is 
>> so often encoded in the name. That's why I'm suggesting this tagging.
>>
>>
> Then why not valley / mid / mountain as values ? If the mountain station is 
> lower than the mid- one, there is no discussion.
>
Become bottom station may be 
located not in the valley and top may
be on the hill, not mountain.


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

Re: [Tagging] Antwort: Re: Aerialway stations

[dktue]

Am 14.08.2020 um 10:53 schrieb yvecai:

On 14.08.20 10:40, dktue wrote:

I would define it as:

lower_station: station that has the lowest elevation (exact 
elevation is not necessary to know, it's obvious)

upper_station: station that has the highest elevation
mid_station: any other station
I want to add: At least in Germany, Switzerland and Austria there are 
well-established german words which you often find in the name of the 
stations themselves:


* "Talstation" ("valley station")
* "Bergstation" ("mountain station"), sometimes also "Gipfelstation" 
("summit station")

* "Mittelstation" ("mid station")

There should be a machine-readeably tagging to get this information 
that is so often encoded in the name. That's why I'm suggesting this 
tagging.



Then why not valley / mid / mountain as values ? If the mountain 
station is lower than the mid- one, there is no discussion.
I think the germany word "Talstation" ("valley station") is not flawless 
as a Talstation might not be in the valley but in the middle of the 
mountain. I think in the german language "Talstation" refers to the 
lowest station of an aerialway. That's why I think lower/mid/upper are 
better suited.
But also, my feeling is that it's more defined by the destination of 
the stop rather than a property of the aerialway node in question: you 
expect maybe a restaurant in the 'mountain station', more rarely in 
the 'valley station', you also expect to put your skis on or start 
riding your bike in the former, etc ...


There is more to a 'mountina station' than being up/down.

That true but I think there are different tags to add this information.

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

Re: [Tagging] Antwort: Re: Aerialway stations

[yvecai]

On 14.08.20 10:40, dktue wrote:

I would define it as:

lower_station: station that has the lowest elevation (exact elevation 
is not necessary to know, it's obvious)

upper_station: station that has the highest elevation
mid_station: any other station
I want to add: At least in Germany, Switzerland and Austria there are 
well-established german words which you often find in the name of the 
stations themselves:


* "Talstation" ("valley station")
* "Bergstation" ("mountain station"), sometimes also "Gipfelstation" 
("summit station")

* "Mittelstation" ("mid station")

There should be a machine-readeably tagging to get this information 
that is so often encoded in the name. That's why I'm suggesting this 
tagging.



Then why not valley / mid / mountain as values ? If the mountain station 
is lower than the mid- one, there is no discussion.


But also, my feeling is that it's more defined by the destination of the 
stop rather than a property of the aerialway node in question: you 
expect maybe a restaurant in the 'mountain station', more rarely in the 
'valley station', you also expect to put your skis on or start riding 
your bike in the former, etc ...


There is more to a 'mountina station' than being up/down.

Yves



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

Re: [Tagging] Antwort: Re: Aerialway stations

[dktue]

Am 14.08.2020 um 10:35 schrieb dktue:

Am 14.08.2020 um 10:28 schrieb yvecai:

On 14.08.20 10:00, dktue wrote:


So why oppose to the suggested tagging of 
station=lower_station/mid_station/upper_station? What harm would 
this cause?


There is concerns expressed by the tag value lower/upper that imply 
the elevation difference, do you want to tag this difference or 
someting else? In other word, can you draft here the definition for 
those values ?


Yves


I would define it as:

lower_station: station that has the lowest elevation (exact elevation 
is not necessary to know, it's obvious)

upper_station: station that has the highest elevation
mid_station: any other station
I want to add: At least in Germany, Switzerland and Austria there are 
well-established german words which you often find in the name of the 
stations themselves:


* "Talstation" ("valley station")
* "Bergstation" ("mountain station"), sometimes also "Gipfelstation" 
("summit station")

* "Mittelstation" ("mid station")

There should be a machine-readeably tagging to get this information that 
is so often encoded in the name. That's why I'm suggesting this tagging.


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

Re: [Tagging] Antwort: Re: Aerialway stations

[dktue]

Am 14.08.2020 um 10:28 schrieb yvecai:

On 14.08.20 10:00, dktue wrote:


So why oppose to the suggested tagging of 
station=lower_station/mid_station/upper_station? What harm would this 
cause?


There is concerns expressed by the tag value lower/upper that imply 
the elevation difference, do you want to tag this difference or 
someting else? In other word, can you draft here the definition for 
those values ?


Yves


I would define it as:

lower_station: station that has the lowest elevation (exact elevation is 
not necessary to know, it's obvious)

upper_station: station that has the highest elevation
mid_station: any other station

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

Re: [Tagging] Antwort: Re: Aerialway stations

[yvecai]

On 14.08.20 10:00, dktue wrote:


So why oppose to the suggested tagging of 
station=lower_station/mid_station/upper_station? What harm would this 
cause?


There is concerns expressed by the tag value lower/upper that imply the 
elevation difference, do you want to tag this difference or someting 
else? In other word, can you draft here the definition for those values ?


Yves



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

Re: [Tagging] Antwort: Re: Aerialway stations

[dktue]

Am 13.08.2020 um 19:06 schrieb Colin Smale:


On 2020-08-13 18:35, Werner.Haag@leitstelle.tirol wrote:


Hi,
in my opinion (i think dktue is right there) it should be easy for a 
user to distinguish or extract (overpass query) the upper, mid and 
lower stations.
That´s not possible at the moment in OSM. Elevation (ele tag) may be 
useful, but does not indicate whether a station is the lower or upper 
one.
On the other hand, a tagging with upper_station or lower_station is 
clear and self-explanatory.
It would also be a denormalisation of the data. In SQL terms you would 
use a subquery like "WHERE ele = MIN(SELECT ele FROM stations 
WHERE...)" although I suspect the usual use case will be looking for 
the whole line, so a simple "ORDER BY ele" would give you all you need 
to know - bottom station is first row, top station is last row, rows 
2..n-1 are mid stations. This would avoid any possibility of 
conflicting information, e.g. multiple stations tagged as top, or the 
station with the lowest elevation being tagged as top station.
All this is based on the assumption that the definition of the top 
station is the one with the highest altitude If any other factors 
are in play that could mean that this definition does not always hold 
true, then I am keen to hear It's best to check assumptions, even 
(especially?) if they do appear obvious.


Your assumption is true. The upper_station is the one with the highest 
altitue whereas the exact altitude is not always known by mappers.


Just to put it in perspective as a mapper from Tyrol joined the 
discussion: In Tyrol alone (less than 10% of Austria's population) OSM 
shows more than 1000 (!) aerialways [1] and for probably each of them it 
would be pretty obvious to tag lower_station and upper_station. I think 
aerialways that go horizontal are an absolute niche. So why oppose to 
the suggested tagging of 
station=lower_station/mid_station/upper_station? What harm would this cause?


[1] http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/X2M
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Antwort: Re: Aerialway stations

[dktue]

Am 13.08.2020 um 19:06 schrieb Colin Smale:


On 2020-08-13 18:35, Werner.Haag@leitstelle.tirol wrote:


Hi,
in my opinion (i think dktue is right there) it should be easy for a 
user to distinguish or extract (overpass query) the upper, mid and 
lower stations.
That´s not possible at the moment in OSM. Elevation (ele tag) may be 
useful, but does not indicate whether a station is the lower or upper 
one.
On the other hand, a tagging with upper_station or lower_station is 
clear and self-explanatory.
It would also be a denormalisation of the data. In SQL terms you would 
use a subquery like "WHERE ele = MIN(SELECT ele FROM stations 
WHERE...)" although I suspect the usual use case will be looking for 
the whole line, so a simple "ORDER BY ele" would give you all you need 
to know - bottom station is first row, top station is last row, rows 
2..n-1 are mid stations. This would avoid any possibility of 
conflicting information, e.g. multiple stations tagged as top, or the 
station with the lowest elevation being tagged as top station.
All this is based on the assumption that the definition of the top 
station is the one with the highest altitude If any other factors 
are in play that could mean that this definition does not always hold 
true, then I am keen to hear It's best to check assumptions, even 
(especially?) if they do appear obvious.
I agree that this is denormalization, but: We still do this in OSM with 
addresses and zipcodes for example and this is a good thing to do: 
Because it allows to find potential errors in the data in an automated 
way. I think it's very hard to find a wrong ele-Tag but it would be easy 
to hint in a quality assurance tool that ele-Tag and station-Tag do 
conflict.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Antwort: Re: Aerialway stations

[Colin Smale]

On 2020-08-13 19:41, Yves wrote:

> If top, middle, bottom have a meaning for the OP, I'm not sure it's really 
> general, counter-examples have been given.

It's not the OP's private project, there is a reason why this is being
debated in public.

> To avoid confusion with elevation, what would be another way to tag them? 
> Motor position have been given, but it is not really relevant for the common 
> user.
> For routing aerialway:access and the connection to a piste:type=downhill 
> start (or whatever) may be sufficient. 
> What is the use case here?

Good question! Not because there isn't one, but because it helps to
understand which problem we are solving, and to get everyone on the same
page before we all start contributing solutions to different problems.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Antwort: Re: Aerialway stations

[Yves]

If top, middle, bottom have a meaning for the OP, I'm not sure it's really 
general, counter-examples have been given.
To avoid confusion with elevation, what would be another way to tag them? 
Motor position have been given, but it is not really relevant for the common 
user.
For routing aerialway:access and the connection to a piste:type=downhill start 
(or whatever) may be sufficient. 
What is the use case here? 
Yves 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Antwort: Re: Aerialway stations

[Colin Smale]

On 2020-08-13 18:35, Werner.Haag@leitstelle.tirol wrote:

> Hi, 
> 
> in my opinion (i think dktue is right there) it should be easy for a user to 
> distinguish or extract (overpass query) the upper, mid and lower stations. 
> That´s not possible at the moment in OSM. Elevation (ele tag) may be useful, 
> but does not indicate whether a station is the lower or upper one. 
> On the other hand, a tagging with upper_station or lower_station is clear and 
> self-explanatory.

It would also be a denormalisation of the data. In SQL terms you would
use a subquery like "WHERE ele = MIN(SELECT ele FROM stations WHERE...)"
although I suspect the usual use case will be looking for the whole
line, so a simple "ORDER BY ele" would give you all you need to know -
bottom station is first row, top station is last row, rows 2..n-1 are
mid stations. This would avoid any possibility of conflicting
information, e.g. multiple stations tagged as top, or the station with
the lowest elevation being tagged as top station. 

All this is based on the assumption that the definition of the top
station is the one with the highest altitude If any other factors
are in play that could mean that this definition does not always hold
true, then I am keen to hear It's best to check assumptions, even
(especially?) if they do appear obvious.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Antwort: Re: Aerialway stations

[Werner . Haag]

Hi,in my opinion (i think dktue is right there) it should be easy for a user to distinguish or extract (overpass query) the upper, mid and lower stations.That´s not possible at the moment in OSM. Elevation (ele tag) may be useful, but does not indicate whether a station is the lower or upper one.On the other hand, a tagging with upper_station or lower_station is clear and self-explanatory.Werner-"Colin Smale"  schrieb: -An: tagging@openstreetmap.orgVon: "Colin Smale" Datum: 13.08.2020 15:22Betreff: Re: [Tagging] Aerialway stations
 
On 2020-08-13 14:49, dktue wrote:
I think it's easy for a mapper to determine if a station is a bottom_station or a upper_station even if he doesn't know the exact elevation.

I would advise against such generalisations - it depends so much on the circumstances and the mapper in question. OSM prefers objective data.
This one has a difference of only 40m. Optically/subjectively it's pretty much dead level. I have done it many times.
http://www.ski-aravis.com/component/content/article/53-remonteeslcl/165-clusaz-telepherique-transval-057.html
Despite the minimal difference the website does indicate that one side is the "top station" and the other side is the "bottom station", but that's probably not a valid source. Anyway, suppose they were both at exactly the same altitude. What's the intrinsic difference between top station and bottom station? The location of the drive motors perhaps? That would be an objective attribute that we could put into OSM (motor=yes/no?)___Tagging mailing listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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