Am 04.10.2011 14:34, schrieb Arun Ganesh:
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 4:46 PM, Janko Mihelić <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I think that tag is not usable. There can be a train that goes
from town to town, making it an ordinary train line. Then when it
comes to a big city, it stops on every station, making it a
commuter train line. How do you tag that? I know there aren't a
lot of these trains, but I think the tag isn't consistent.
In *any* case of tagging there are cases difficult to define well. There
might be these services that you point out, not a lot as you say. So
should we stop improving the tagging system because of these ambiguous
cases?
Personally, for a train service like you say I would put route=train on
the relation.
But there are a lot of service that are very easy to define as commuter
rail.
How many circles around a route does it make a commuter line?
It's no use put a well defined number here (less than X times makes it
train, more than X times makes it commuter).
I think, Wikipedia defines commuter rail and tells the difference to
other services quite well: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commuter_rail
Dedicated suburban commuter rail systems exist in 3 cities in India -
Mumbai, Chennai and Kolkata, with dedicated tracks just for these
special type of EMU trains. Ordinary trains do not run on these
tracks. But once outside the city limits, ordinary trains and the
suburban trains start sharing the railway line. Like Janko said,
tagging the railway tracks as commuter rail will be inconsistent.
I did not propose to tag the *way* as commuter rail, but the *relations*
regarding these train connections. Commuter rail often uses the same
rail tracks as long distance services. That is why railway=rail is
correct for the ways; but IMHO route=commuter for the relations is
interesting information.
It might be a better idea to have a classification system for the
railway lines depending on the type of usage. These could be applied
to railway route relations:
A: Mixed Use (Passenger+Commuter+Freight)
A1: Primary route
A2: Secondary route
A3: Branch line
B: Passenger services only (Passenger+Commuter)
B1: Primary route
B2: Secondary route
B3: Branch line
C: Commuter rail only (Commuter)
C1: High frequency route
C2: Low frequency route
D: Urban rail (subway)
D1: Primary route
D2: Secondary/branch routes
E: Tourism/Heritage service only
F: Freight only
F1: Primary route
F2: Secondary route
F3: Branch line
That makes it even more difficult to distinguish! What do you answer to
Janko's points?
Do you want to tag ways or relations with these tags?
I went through the wiki, and there seems like a ton of abandoned
proposals, so its possible this might have been discussed before.
Someone please point me to where all the action regarding this is
happening, I really want to classify the Indian railway network better.
What do you think about what Wikipedia says about India here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commuter_rail#Asia ?
--
j.mp/ArunGanesh <http://j.mp/ArunGanesh>
Greetings, Daniel
_______________________________________________
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
