On Sat, 16 Feb 2019 at 11:39, Markus <selfishseaho...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Jarek, > > I'd welcome a tag for tram tracks that normally aren't used except for > diversions (in case of breakdowns, accidents, road/track works, events etc.) > or for drives to the depot. However, i'm unsure whether service=siding is a > good fit for these tracks. I'm not an expert in trams/trains, but wouldn't > service=spur fit better? Otherwise it might make sense to invent a new tag, > maybe service=irregular/auxillary/minor/secondary?
Hi Markus, Thanks for your input. I agree with you that "siding" is not a good description, but it seemed the least-wrong one of the 4 railway values in use. "Spur" to me sounds like something that branches off and ends (as illustrated for railways). Meanwhile with service=siding I am looking for a description for tracks that connect two stretches of regular tracks. I do like your suggestions - "irregular" should be clear enough, and I like "auxillary" as well except I don't know if its meaning is commonly-enough understood. "Minor" seems like it could be misunderstood: if you have two lines, one of which runs more frequently than the other, are the tracks of the less-frequent line "minor"? Or how about service=detour? I chose "siding" because I didn't want to invent new tag value, to avoid too big and slow of a change. But maybe we should do it, what do you think? Existing values are used: - in editor presets, including iD and JOSM presets for tram tracks - both have "Spur", "Yard", "Siding", and "Crossover" in a dropdown for tram tracks, so matching the railway ones. Arguably it would be good to update those values for tram anyway, e.g. if we were to recommend that "spur" not be used on trams - in rendering: default layer hardcodes 3 current values for tram service (excluding crossover) - though if I'm understanding it right, it should be easy enough to change in https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/blob/dd096af4f566eb9c31e50ac447215f68e45b563f/project.mml#L514 - transport layer seems to render service=siding thinner, but presumably also updateable; openrailwaymap doesn't seem to render tram service tags in a special way so no problem there Or how about if we were recommend that of the current options, siding should be used (to attempt to standardize what we have); and in parallel launch a formal proposal process for adding more proper tram service=irregular? Thanks again, --Jarek _______________________________________________ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
