On 2 Sep 2009, at 16:27, Richard Mann wrote:
1) Would it make sense to seek permision from TfL to derive
labelling information from their website maps. It's such a rich
source of info, it'd be a pity not to try. They're a bit daft
putting copyright on their spider diagrams - if I were them, I'd
want them to be copied.
Sounds worth a go. There is also a difference between accessing a few
'facts' from their spider maps than reproducing them. One legitimate
reason for disallowing reproduction is to ensure that out of date ones
are not displayed. Another good reason to contact authorities in this
way is to raise the profile of OSM.
2) I don't like the idea of ways for platforms, except possibly for
the limited case where you've got one platform on each side. It's
just not extendable. They should be areas. Sublettering for parts of
platforms should probably be on nodes, representing the point on the
platform that's the midpoint for boarding a train that stops at that
platform (it will be in the timetable system as "2a", and a notional
router ought to direct you to that point). If a platform is split
into 2a and 2b, you probably need three nodes - 2a/2b and 2 (for
trains that take up the full length).
Personally I find linear ways pretty satisfactory for platforms, which
often have no more width than a footpath after all (which are also
tagged as linear features)/ Possibly we should use areas for larger
platforms (ie the paved/tarmac area) with highway=pedestrian;area=yes
and then add railway=platform ways to the edges of the area as
required. Sub platforms can also be linear ways for their actual
extent (I don't like using nodes for sub-platforms because they do
have an extent which can be measured and is sometimes be important).
For a platform that serves two tracks, one of either side then an area
should be used with the two different sides having appropriate linear
'platforms' associated with them. I am not sure how to represent a set
of steps coming down to a point in the middle of an area though. One
reason to use linear ways for now is because we already have the tools
to build, render and route models that use them. Areas are fine with
side accesses, but not top and bottom accesses.
Regards,
Peer
Richard
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 1:17 PM, Frankie Roberto <[email protected]
> wrote:
2009/9/2 Shaun McDonald <[email protected]>
That was ages ago that I done that. I have added those extra details
to a few stations, in some cases even adding the platform numbers.
It does become more difficult when there are island platforms. The
reason why I have been adding them is from a desire to know how to
access the station, and how to access the platforms. It is also an
increased detail thing.
I had a discussion about island platforms on the wiki a while back
(see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/unified_stoparea#Sheffield)
. When I mapped Sheffield Station (http://www.openstreetmap.org/?relation=79249
) I noted that some platforms have up to 6 different names (2A, 2B,
3, 4, 5A, 5B).
The options as I see it are:
* stick all the names in a single ref= tag, semi-colon or comma
separated (the former seems to be the convention?)
* add the names to the stopping points (the node on the actual
railway way).
* splitting the platform way into different ways (eg two halves) and
then tagging those separately (although this still leaves you the
problem of different names for the different 'edges').
* doing something complicated with relations.
Thoughts?
Frankie
--
Frankie Roberto
Experience Designer, Rattle
0114 2706977
http://www.rattlecentral.com
_______________________________________________
Talk-transit mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
_______________________________________________
Talk-transit mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
_______________________________________________
Talk-transit mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
