Hi Colin, Colin: Actually, in the case you mentioned (short/long trains), I guess > there could also be several stop points. I think that's not a problem. It's > just you would only add one of those to the route relation. For the several > stop points, ideally there would be a note, saying "front of train, 4 > carriages" or "front of train, 8 carriages", or maybe an additional tag of > some kind. > > > > So which one would you choose to add to the route? >
One of them? There doesn't seem to be guidance on this, and https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route#Members is vague. I would have normally just added one stop position, and added that to the relation. (Most London Underground stations I've looked at only have one stop_position anyway.) > > Fundamentally I think the definition of a "route" is the list of places > where a stop is made. A rail route links stations. If the 0900 train uses > platform 1 and the 0930 uses platform 2 then that is not a sufficient > distinction to say they are on different routes. So the detail of stop > position is definitely going too far for the definition of a route. > Basically, I'm trying to understand https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route#Members. There's the concept of station vs. stop_position, in case there are many stop_positions in a station / stop_area. Sorry for London examples, but I'm trying to get to grips with TFL. So e.g. King's Cross is a station/stop_area, but with multiple stop_positions (for underground, busses, main line, etc). In 'Members', there a node with role "stop"/"stop:n", described as follows "A bus stop or train halt, on the route. The order of the members in the relation should be identical to the order in the timetable. The number is not needed to preserve the order of stops. It is only a guide to help mappers finding missing or misplaced stops. You can use stop instead, if you like." My interpretation is that "bus stop or train halt" refers to a station or otherwise to railway=stop/public_transport=stop_position. So it's possible to add a station. The page suggests node, but I guess whatever is tagged as station could be added there when there is no unique stop_position (e.g. for mainline stations). There is also a role for platform, so there is definitely scope for adding platforms, but yes, that may not be possible. > > Veering a little off-topic, we have a bit of a challenge in the tagging of > multiple tracks. There is no way at present to group multiple tracks into a > single entity. If there is a quad track from A to B and they are mapped as > individual tracks of equal status, then they all have to part of the route > from A to B (assuming they are truly equivalent). It would be better from a > data modelling perspective to have the *route* use a single line ("logical > track") between the stations. > I think what's in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route#Members, role "route", doesn't conflict with this. You could add all tracks 1,2,3,4 into the route relationship (with empty role or role=route). I think they would not be separate route relations. My interpretation of the spec would be that you have a route relation with <empty> 1 <empty> 2 <empty> 3 <empty> 5 stop A stop B and one with <empty> 1 <empty> 2 <empty> 3 <empty> 5 stop B stop A Both relations would be combined into a route_master relationship. Let me know if you see it differently. Bjoern > --colin > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
