I've highlighted that misuse of "bus guideways" in two cases (Nantes and Mexico City) in my comparison table at the beginning of this thread [1]. I'd guess these were mapped for the renderer, so probably worth a map note for local mappers if nobody disagrees.
[1] http://i.imgur.com/RLdZgDk.png On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 7:14 AM, Mateusz Konieczny <matkoni...@gmail.com> wrote: > Note that highway=bus_guideway is for "A busway that is side guided "rails > like", not suitable for other traffic." - so it is not just bus lane. > > See for an example > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridgeshire_Guided_Busway#mediaviewer/File:Guided_bus_Oakington_to_Longstanton.jpg > > 2015-03-04 10:41 GMT+01:00 Richard Mann <richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com>: >> >> Trams used to be just done as a simple tag on the road way, but they have >> slowly been converted to having their own OSM ways (one for each track). I >> haven't been paying attention; there might not be many of the original >> method left. >> >> I'd probably draw it as four parallel ways, and regard the white line as >> effective separation. I don't think the tags for busways are entirely >> settled yet. Some in the UK are >> highway=service+access=no+psv=yes+name=Busway, but the one in Cambridge uses >> highway=bus guideway+psv:guided=only, which shows up in bright blue at zoom >> 13 in the default rendering, but isn't recognised by many data users. >> >> {I'd probably suggest that the blue rendering should be based on something >> other than the highway tag, but that's another matter}. >> >> Richard >> >> On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 11:33 PM, Fernando Trebien >> <fernando.treb...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> I assume there is no opposition to either method then. >>> >>> Most tram systems are mapped as individual ways (usually in parallel >>> pairs), even when they share space with cars and have no physical >>> separation. I'm not really acquainted with tramway mapping (they're >>> very rare in Brazil), but I tried to sample various cities (see list >>> below) and what I found is that, where the street is drawn as a single >>> way and cars share space with trams, a platform that is a physical >>> divider essentially never really causes the road to be drawn as >>> separated lines. The road is usually divided for its entire length for >>> other reasons (I'm guessing it's usually due to local law requiring >>> cars to stay out of the tramway except when turning at intersections >>> or reaching a destination at the opposite side). >>> >>> This suggests it is ok to map the BRT system in Porto Alegre as bus >>> lane tags on the main ways. However, the map would show a platform on >>> the left side of the way that on reality is on the right side of the >>> buses as they arrive. By mapping as a separated way, one can render a >>> bus map where lines are clearly identified as going through the >>> corridor (faster, reachable only by the middle platforms) or through >>> the main ways (slower, reachable by the sidewalk). So I think mapping >>> separately has more practical value. >>> >>> Here's the list of cities I've sampled: Moscow, Saint Petersburg, >>> Toronto, Melbourne, Berlin, Paris, Milan, Brussels, Antwerp, >>> Amsterdam, The Hague, Stuttgart, Bremen, Leipzig, Dresden, Hanover, >>> Zürich and Manchester. A few odd cases I found that you might want to >>> check out: >>> >>> 52.3545998 4.8884183 Highway and railway tags mixed on same line (akin >>> to maping bus lanes with tags on the main way) >>> 52.0680083 4.288239 Same as previous >>> 43.6513302 -79.3843008 Highway and railway are overlapping ways >>> (probably bad practice, and also seems to break the logic of "one line >>> for each rail track") >>> 53.0806042 8.8297144 Tramway space can be used by non-rail public >>> service vehicles >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 6:20 AM, Richard Mann >>> <richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > Map it one way or the other (I'd say either was acceptable), but don't >>> > switch repeatedly between the two. >>> > >>> > There are many tram systems which only really separate from the road at >>> > stops, with much less separation between stops than your clear white >>> > line. >>> > >>> > On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 3:20 AM, Fernando Trebien >>> > <fernando.treb...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> I'd like to hear your opinion on how to properly represent my >>> >> hometown's (Porto Alegre) bus rapid transit (BRT) system, which is >>> >> slightly unusual. >>> >> >>> >> The system consists of bus lanes (buses can switch to/from main >>> >> traffic at any point and do so almost at will along several stretches) >>> >> that become separated from the main ways next to platform/stops, which >>> >> act as physical barriers. Check either: >>> >> - an illustration: http://i.imgur.com/O4MaQhK.jpg >>> >> - the reality: >>> >> >>> >> https://maps.google.com/maps?layer=c&cbll=-30.008432,-51.183492&cbp=12,84.21,,0,7.43 >>> >> >>> >> If strictly following OSM's conventions on separation of ways [1], I >>> >> think it would be represented as lanes:psv=* on many (but not all) >>> >> spans of the main ways, with highway=service ways only next to >>> >> platforms. >>> >> >>> >> After some research, I think this would be a rare, perhaps unique >>> >> ("weird") mapping of a BRT system in OSM. Here >>> >> [http://i.imgur.com/RLdZgDk.png] is an comparison of several major BRT >>> >> systems in reasonably well mapped areas of the world. All of those >>> >> systems are correctly mapped as separated service ways because there >>> >> is continuous physical separation between the busways and main >>> >> traffic. So I'm wondering if, for clarity, my hometown's case >>> >> could/should be mapped "as if" there is continuous physical >>> >> separation, like almost everywhere else. >>> >> >>> >> Notes: >>> >> >>> >> In my comparison table, Mexico City's and Jakarta's BRT systems' stops >>> >> are highlighted because they probably qualify as "bus stations" [2]. >>> >> >>> >> Buenos Aires' system is quite similar to Porto Alegre's. They use a >>> >> variety of physical structures between bus lanes and regular lanes, >>> >> but I'm not sure if the smallest ones are considered "physical >>> >> separators" in Argentina. In case they are not, it would turn out as >>> >> the same "weird" situation as in my hometown in some places. The >>> >> Brazilian separators are quite different, but their status as >>> >> "physical separators" is well agreed upon. [3] >>> >> >>> >> An opinion [4] made me wonder if highway=service is indeed adequate >>> >> for these bus tracks. They really don't provide local access to >>> >> "sites" (parking lots, private properties, bus stations, etc.). >>> >> Instead, they allow people to move across vast distances around the >>> >> city, just like regular roads. Maybe they should be >>> >> highway=unclassified as in Brisbane. >>> >> >>> >> I know that Cleveland has a BRT system based solely on bus lanes, but >>> >> with no separation from main traffic next to platforms. >>> >> >>> >> To help anyone interested, below are coordinates of areas that I >>> >> consider "representative examples" of each of those BRT systems. They >>> >> are good starting points for exploration. >>> >> >>> >> -27.4785878 153.0205546 Australia/Brisbane/South East Busway >>> >> 45.4064414 -75.6642915 Canada/Ottawa/Transitway >>> >> -34.5922814 -58.4407038 Argentina/Buenos Aires/Metrobus >>> >> 34.1812658 -118.5534848 USA/Los Angeles/Orange Line >>> >> -23.6915090 -46.5570539 Brazil/São Paulo/Corredor ABD >>> >> -25.4359510 -49.3072766 Brazil/Curitiba/Linha Verde >>> >> 49.4409999 1.0825457 France/Rouen/TEOR >>> >> 47.2060680 -1.5388248 France/Nantes/Busway (line 4) >>> >> 52.2340794 0.1350110 UK/Cambridge/The Busway >>> >> -23.0003967 -43.3829705 Brazil/Rio de Janeiro/TransOeste >>> >> -23.5620123 -46.6124021 Brazil/São Paulo/Expresso Tiradentes >>> >> -6.1878222 106.8229964 Indonesia/Jakarta/TransJakarta Corridor 1 >>> >> 19.4036069 -99.1692696 Mexico/Mexico City/Metrobus lines 1-3 >>> >> >>> >> [1] >>> >> >>> >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Editing_Standards_and_Conventions#Divided_highways >>> >> [2] >>> >> >>> >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Public_Transport#Station >>> >> [3] >>> >> >>> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-br/2013-December/004837.html >>> >> [4] >>> >> >>> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2010-November/005799.html >>> >> >>> >> -- >>> >> Fernando Trebien >>> >> +55 (51) 9962-5409 >>> >> >>> >> "Nullius in verba." >>> >> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >>> >> Tagging mailing list >>> >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >>> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > Tagging mailing list >>> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org >>> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Fernando Trebien >>> +55 (51) 9962-5409 >>> >>> "Nullius in verba." >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 > -- Fernando Trebien +55 (51) 9962-5409 "Nullius in verba." _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging