On 4 Aug 2009, at 23:37, Frankie Roberto wrote:
Hi all,
I'm still keen to try and nail this public transport service vs
infrastructure issue.
I have create a new wiki-page 'Public transport schema 2' based on
Oxomoa's proposal on the main wiki based on the last edit made before
the big revert. I have added a bit of information about the relation
you refer to in the 'infrastructure' section , but more is needed:-
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Public_transport_schema_2
This is very much a proposal to discuss and develop which I see it as
being the top-level transit description which links out to more
detailed articles (some of which already exist) to create a coherent
whole.
Regards,
Peter
I think this mainly applies to railways, however, as I've mentioned
before, I'm trying out a few of the ideas on the UK's much smaller
list of tram networks.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Trams details
where I've got to so far.
The Tramlink in Croydon (London) is a good example of where the the
infrastructure (the track network) is clearly different from the
tram service patterns (routes 1 to 3).
The routes are currently mapped with a relation tagged as
type=route, route=tram.
I've just created a relation for the network as a whole (see http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/189917)
. For the type being, it's tagged as type=network, network=tram as
well as public_transport=network from Sebastians proposal.
Are there any other views on how this should be tagged? Perhaps the
network shouldn't be tagged at all, under the "relations aren't for
categories" principle?
I'm also of the opinion that we should stick to using type=route,
route=tram/railway for the train/tram service patterns, rather than
the infrastructure. However, this appears to be the opposite of
what's written in http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Oxomoa/Public_transport_schema
Thoughts?
Frankie
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 10:25 PM, Frankie Roberto <fran...@frankieroberto.com
> wrote:
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 8:27 PM, Jochen Topf <joc...@remote.org>
wrote:
> The first question is what does route=railway denote, the
infrastructure or
> the service pattern?
This has been solved in Sebastians proposal:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Oxomoa/Public_transport_schema#Differentiation_between_railway_lines_and_railway_routes
Thanks for the link, I hadn't seen this. I agree with Peter that we
need to bring these various proposals together, form some kind of
consensus, and document it fully on the main wiki pages (eg http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Routes)
Interestingly, if I understand it correctly, the division between
"route" and "line" in Sebastian's proposal is exactly opposite to
what I'd intuitively have guessed at from the words. eg, we have
the "West Coast Main Line" (the infrastructure or rail corridor) and
"the route of the Flying Scotsman" (the schedule service route).
So if it was me, I think I'd name them the opposite way round.
However, so long as we document them clearly (with examples), I
guess it doesn't matter too much which words we use.
As a first step, I think it'd be useful to look at some concrete
examples, see how they're currently tagged in OSM, and suggest ways
in which the various schemes would be applied.
I've started doing this a bit with the UK's tram networks (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Trams
), which so far use route=tram to tag the service patterns of the
trams (which seem to sometimes be called lines, and sometimes routes).
--
Frankie Roberto
Experience Designer, Rattle
0114 2706977
http://www.rattlecentral.com
_______________________________________________
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
_______________________________________________
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
