On Jul 12, 2018, at 1:46 PM, Jarek Piórkowski <ja...@piorkowski.ca> wrote:
> Damien's question appears to be about nodes like
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/438843513, which has
> name=Berri-UQAM, operator=Société de transport de Montréal.
> short_name=STM seems inappropriate here, we could do
> operator:short_name=STM or something but it seems a bit much.
Thank you for your analysis and reporting to the list, Jarek! Yes, I agree
that operator:short_name=STM is a bit of "overkill" (getting over-specific on
the key side).
> The nearby station https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/26233453 has
> name=Jean-Drapeau, network=STM, operator=Société de transport de
> Montréal which seems like an attempt as good as we might get. Commuter
> rail station https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/548900549 has
> network=RTM, operator=Réseau de transport métropolitain which fits
> that scheme as well. Similar with a random bus line on North Shore
I find that operator=* is a key which certainly applies to "underlying rail
infrastructure" objects (railway=rail), especially when the rail is
freight-oriented, though I have also seen operator=* set to the value of the
passenger operator when the underlying infrastructure is one of
[railway=light_rail, railway=subway, railway=tram] on more passenger-oriented
rail. Though, I seem to recall more frequently (I'd have to do some Overpass
Turbo queries to confirm this) network=* is applied to the passenger (not
freight) elements instead of operator=*, both are used, both seem correct.
Without getting "lost in the weeds," there are/were three "levels" of railway
route relations: #1 is/used to be route=tracks (largely if not completely
deprecated in North America, but maybe still used in Germany), #2 is
route=railway (a grouping of what we in N.A. call "Subdivisions" or "Branches"
or "Industrial Lines") and #3 is route=train relations for passenger rail. We
can (and do) have passenger rail as route=train relations all over N.A. withOUT
the "underlying infrastructure" of route=railway relations, but I, others and
indeed OSM consider this incomplete and rather sloppy. The Germans use all
three (or did). The Bottom Line for what we in N.A. should do is to use BOTH
of the "middle-" (#2, route=railway) and #3 "higher-" level (route=train)
relations to describe "track infrastructure" and "passenger rail routes." OK,
thanks for reading all that, it makes a better OSM.
> Looking through map very casually I didn't see any operator=STM on the
> subway. I did see it on a bus line
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/270258 but changing it to
> network=STM and operator=Société de transport de Montréal seems like
> it'd be fine there IMO.
Yes, again, I agree.
> To me "operator" looks a bit more little technical than the other
> tags, so to me it would be alright to use the longer more formal name.
> But I wouldn't edit-war anyone about it. I'd say run a query, see
> which is more common currently, ask people here (as you've done), then
> after a week change the minority tags to match.
You saying "more technical" might be agreeing with me that operator=* is at a
"lower/middle level" (infrastructure on track, not "higher level" as applied to
the different relation of route=train for passenger rail). So I think we are
largely in agreement: if you (and Canada) want to move into the direction of
putting operator=* on freight rail (and maybe sometimes passenger rail), yes,
that seems correct. If you additionally want to use the network=* key for, in
this example, STM, yes, that makes perfect sense to me as well. So does your
suggestion/approach of "run a (OT) query...change minority tags to match."
Thank you for good discussion,
Talk-ca mailing list