On Sun, 10 Mar 2019 at 17:28, Markus wrote:
> I still find service=siding to be inappropriate for irregular tracks
> and would prefer a new tag, such as usage=irregular. I am willing to
> prepare a proposal for it as soon as i find some time.
No worries, I agree a dedicated tag with proper
On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 at 11:33, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
> In tram systems, some of the tracks might not be used regularly for
> passenger service. Some might be garage or work area tracks, and
> others might be used only for detours or emergency service.
> ...
> Plea
On Sat, 16 Feb 2019 at 11:39, Markus wrote:
>
> Hi Jarek,
>
> I'd welcome a tag for tram tracks that normally aren't used except for
> diversions (in case of breakdowns, accidents, road/track works, events etc.)
> or for drives to the depot. However, i'm unsure whether service=siding is a
>
On Sun, 17 Feb 2019 at 13:43, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>
> The current four service values are based on physical characteristics of the
> track that are easily observed on the ground and unlikely to change.
>
> This proposal seems to overload that with an indication of how the track is
> used, and
On Sun, 17 Feb 2019 at 10:55, Markus wrote:
> detour seems a bit unsuitable for turn tracks or connections because afaik it
> implies a longer route, but the tracks i have in mind are rather shortcuts.
> Maybe deviation doesn't have this meaning?
Right, I withdraw the detour suggestion.
Hello,
In tram systems, some of the tracks might not be used regularly for
passenger service. Some might be garage or work area tracks, and
others might be used only for detours or emergency service.
The `service` key seems a natural match for tagging this, but its
values specified for railways
On Tue, 28 May 2019 at 07:24, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> In this bot edit:
>
> * Editing is limited to Poland
> * Editing is limited to nodes with public_transport=platform bus=yes
> * Nodes with nearby (within 250 meters) highway=bus_stop are ignored[1]
> * Elements with highway tag are skipped
On Mon, 13 May 2019 at 03:50, Snusmumriken
wrote:
> On Sun, 2019-05-12 at 20:55 +0200, Tijmen Stam wrote:
> > It is not uncommon for key/values to be misnomers in OSM. Clearest
> > example is private-access ways being tagged as highway=* (plus
> > access=no) which is a misnomer in British English
On Mon, 13 May 2019 at 11:49, Dave F via Talk-transit
wrote:
> If Philip really wants a router to tell him where the nearest
> shelter (surely you can just look around you),
You're joking?!
The entire OpenStreetMap could be waved away with the phrase "surely
you can just look around you". Why
On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 07:54, Tijmen Stam wrote:
> In my environment, some people are adding old ("razed" railways to
> openstreetmak, of which no trace is visible in the field.
> It concerns both old railways which have been gone since 1933, e.g.
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/592259029
On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 09:57, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
> I can imagine calculating correct stop position being challenging in
> case of multi-lane bus stations like
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/37096072 (looks like
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Islington_TTC_B
On Thu, 9 May 2019 at 17:04, Markus wrote:
> Could you please give some examples where the stop position can't be
> calculated from the waiting area? I'd also like to know for which use
> cases the stop positions are necessary.
I can imagine calculating correct stop position being challenging in
Hi all,
I wrote some point-form notes of the discussion so far for people to
refer or respond to. I asked questions in 7a, 7c, 8c, 10c, 11c, 13b,
14.
1. Majority of world's public transit is buses
2. Majority of world's bus stops are simple signs (or sometimes no
signs at all) and will never [1]
Sorry, crossed my wires while editing at one point:
> 9a. Because we must retain hw=bus_stop per #3 and #5, any
> accommodation of these cases must either be initially of tags, or
> guidance on how to place highway=bus_stop tags
make that:
9a. Because we must retain hw=bus_stop per #3 and #5,
s_stop to a highway with a path would that address the
> routing concerns? Or is that idea too simple?
>
> Thanks John
>
> On Tue, May 7, 2019, 3:53 PM Jarek Piórkowski, wrote:
>>
>> Sorry, crossed my wires while editing at one point:
>>
>> > 9a. Becau
On Sat, 27 Apr 2019 at 10:35, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
> ... it might make sense to check what they absolutely need and
> what is a nice to have. Do we know of any other major consumers of
> public transit relations?
Responding to myself, I remembered that of course Maps.me also doe
Hi all,
I noticed that OsmAnd has recently introduced support for some public
transit routing: https://osmand.net/blog/guideline-pt . Has anyone
used it or is familiar with the implementation? I would guess it would
make them one of the bigger consumers of public transit relations in
OSM and it
On Sun, 28 Apr 2019 at 10:04, Markus wrote:
> I've tested the bus routes from Stockholm in OsmAnd. They seem to work
> perfectly despite not having any public_transport=platform tags and
> public_transport=stop_position nodes.
Oh cool - with routing and time estimates and all?
> Tram stops
Fundamentally this isn't that different from long-distance train services.
In practice, at least in Germany, Flixbus is one of very few bus
operators that have 1) daily/weekly schedules and 2) tickets they sell
to anyone (rather than a charter service). However I am aware
elsewhere this might not
On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 at 06:23, Dave F via Talk-transit
wrote:
> On 06/08/2019 07:08, Janko Mihelić wrote:
> > An app would route from one station to the other, and show status as if you
> > were driving. There could be a tag that would say if the route goes through
> > motorways, tolled roads,
On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 at 18:58, Alex Dhawan wrote:
> Would defiantly have to be a ballpark figure for any some of capacity metric.
> Could maybe also do capacity:peak/offpeak or
> capacity:morning/afternoon/evening/night?
Not quite as elegant, but in OSM tagging scheme this could be
On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 at 13:17, Daniel Capilla wrote:
> When we started mapping the bus routes in Málaga, Alan Grant and I came
> to the conclusion that it was not necessary to add "stop_area" relations
> due to the type of bus stops in Málaga, [2] where there are no actual
> stop areas (only a
Personally I wouldn't recommend this tagging (especially on the linked
stop where service is no better than every 20 minutes), but the Berlin
and German tagging community is large enough that IMO this is
something they may well decide to do internally - so could also ask on
a German list?
--Jarek
Without route relations, OSM shows where you can get on the train/vehicle,
but not where you can go
On Tue, Jun 1, 2021, 10:58 Dave F via Talk-transit <
talk-transit@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> What's wrong with consulting a timetable?
>
> Maps show you where you can go, timetables tell you when
On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 at 13:34, Philip Barnes wrote:
> On Tue, 2021-06-01 at 13:07 -0400, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 1, 2021, 12:38 Dave F via Talk-transit <
> > talk-transit@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> > > On 01/06/2021 16:11, Christopher Parker wrote
On Tue, Jun 1, 2021, 14:15 Dave F via Talk-transit <
talk-transit@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
>
> On 01/06/2021 18:07, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 1, 2021, 12:38 Dave F via Talk-transit <
> talk-transit@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
>> On 01/
On Thu, 28 Jan 2021 at 05:57, Janko Mihelić wrote:
> I'm wondering how other mappers are solving this problem. The gtfs of my
> public transport provider (Zagreb) has stops that have one gtfs:stop_id when
> it is used as a middle stop in a rute, and a different gtfs:stop_id when it
> is the
Would stop_area_group be a solution here? That was proposed a while back
but I'm not sure if it was officially accepted.
On Sat, Jan 22, 2022, 07:36 Alexey Z via Talk-transit <
talk-transit@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
> Hello.
>
> Let me raise a question/appeal about stop_area relation. PTv2 is
28 matches
Mail list logo
