stevea wrote: > Alexander Jones wrote: >> * I'm in the process of retracing most of the current and abandoned lines >> in the San Joaquin Valley south of Stockton. Especially on the BNSF line, >> don't waste your time. > > I'm not sure why you think this is waste of time, but I appreciate > the heads-up that you are working here!
I was trying to say, "Let's not duplicate work." It's not a waste, but I wanted to let you know I was going to be remapping that segment anyway. > >> * I generally use 7 tags: railway=rail, operator=, old_railway_operator=, >> name=, usage=, electrified=, and gauge=. > > Yes, I'll use owner= if known, and it is name= which displays in ORM > as the name of the line. Many lines had name= as the service run > upon them (like Caltrain instead of Union Pacific), and I have > corrected this where I know it was wrong in OSM. But I haven't > corrected all of these, just the ones I know. And now I think I'll > have to go back and correct name=Union Pacific as the name of Union > Pacific's subdivision for the line that Caltrain is run upon: > Caltrain itself should be a relation. And so on. > If Wikipedia is to be believed, Caltrain owns the track between San Francisco and Tamien Station, and the UP owns the track south to Gilroy. >> * I still use old-fashioned (according to OpenRailwayMap) route=railway >> relations for the tracks. I don't think the relations are rendered, but >> I'm not completely sure. But I keep the IDs in the org-mode files I use >> to manage my work, so I could always switch the tag out if needed. > > I didn't quite follow that (and I agree: it appears route relations > are not rendered in ORM). Sorry. I was noting the software I use for managing my rail remap projects. > Charlotte wrote: >>Thanks for the tip about openrailwaymap.org. I have aligned many >>railroads in Arizona and added many others. But I distrust the naming >>there, so I just have left that alone. >>Also, I don't know how to do relations, so, if you finish >>California, feel free to make relations in Arizona. > > Relations can be a challenge for some OSM contributors. While it is > technically possible to edit relations with either iD or Potlatch 2, > I don't recommend it, as the GUI is klunky, confusing and > error-prone. JOSM is a much better editor to edit relations in OSM > (imo), and while there is a learning curve that takes practice to get > the hang of it, it is relatively short and is "only a small mountain > to conquer." You can do it! Learning JOSM is well worth it if you're going to do any complex mapping. > > Great to see this enthusiasm and good communication. > > SteveA > California > Alexander _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
