<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><div>On 2 Sep 2009, at 16:27, Richard Mann wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div>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.</div></blockquote><div><br></div>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 One legitimate reason for disallowing reproduction is to ensure that out of date ones are not displayed.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.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"> <div> </div> <div>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).</div></blockquote><div><br></div>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.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Regards,</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Peer</div><div><br></div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"> <div> </div> <div>Richard<br><br></div> <div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 1:17 PM, Frankie Roberto <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:frankie@frankieroberto.com">frankie@frankieroberto.com</a>></span> wrote:<br> <blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class="gmail_quote"><br><br> <div class="gmail_quote">2009/9/2 Shaun McDonald <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:shaun@shaunmcdonald.me.uk" target="_blank">shaun@shaunmcdonald.me.uk</a>></span> <div class="im"><br> <div> </div> <blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid; MARGIN: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class="gmail_quote"> <div style="WORD-WRAP: break-word"> <div> <div>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.<br> </div></div></div></blockquote></div></div><br>I had a discussion about island platforms on the wiki a while back (see <a href="http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/unified_stoparea#Sheffield" target="_blank">http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/unified_stoparea#Sheffield</a>). When I mapped Sheffield Station (<a href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/?relation=79249" target="_blank">http://www.openstreetmap.org/?relation=79249</a>) I noted that some platforms have up to 6 different names (2A, 2B, 3, 4, 5A, 5B).<br> <br>The options as I see it are:<br><br>* stick all the names in a single ref= tag, semi-colon or comma separated (the former seems to be the convention?)<br>* add the names to the stopping points (the node on the actual railway way).<br> * 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').<br>* doing something complicated with relations.<br> <br>Thoughts?<br><br>Frankie <br><font color="#888888"><br>-- <br>Frankie Roberto<br>Experience Designer, Rattle<br>0114 2706977<br><a href="http://www.rattlecentral.com/" target="_blank">http://www.rattlecentral.com</a><br> <br></font><br>_______________________________________________<br>Talk-transit mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org">Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org</a><br><a href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit" target="_blank">http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit</a><br> <br></blockquote></div><br> _______________________________________________<br>Talk-transit mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org">Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org</a><br>http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit<br></blockquote></div><br></body></html>