[Tagging] Mapping busways with alternating physical separation

Mateusz Konieczny matkoniecz at gmail.com
Wed Mar 4 10:14:07 UTC 2015


Note that highway=bus_guideway is for "A busway that is side guided "rails
like", not suitable for other traffic." - so it is not just bus lane.

See for an example
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridgeshire_Guided_Busway#mediaviewer/File:Guided_bus_Oakington_to_Longstanton.jpg

2015-03-04 10:41 GMT+01:00 Richard Mann <richard.mann.westoxford at gmail.com>:

> Trams used to be just done as a simple tag on the road way, but they have
> slowly been converted to having their own OSM ways (one for each track). I
> haven't been paying attention; there might not be many of the original
> method left.
>
> I'd probably draw it as four parallel ways, and regard the white line as
> effective separation. I don't think the tags for busways are entirely
> settled yet. Some in the UK are
> highway=service+access=no+psv=yes+name=Busway, but the one in Cambridge
> uses highway=bus guideway+psv:guided=only, which shows up in bright blue at
> zoom 13 in the default rendering, but isn't recognised by many data users.
>
> {I'd probably suggest that the blue rendering should be based on something
> other than the highway tag, but that's another matter}.
>
> Richard
>
> On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 11:33 PM, Fernando Trebien <
> fernando.trebien at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I assume there is no opposition to either method then.
>>
>> Most tram systems are mapped as individual ways (usually in parallel
>> pairs), even when they share space with cars and have no physical
>> separation. I'm not really acquainted with tramway mapping (they're
>> very rare in Brazil), but I tried to sample various cities (see list
>> below) and what I found is that, where the street is drawn as a single
>> way and cars share space with trams, a platform that is a physical
>> divider essentially never really causes the road to be drawn as
>> separated lines. The road is usually divided for its entire length for
>> other reasons (I'm guessing it's usually due to local law requiring
>> cars to stay out of the tramway except when turning at intersections
>> or reaching a destination at the opposite side).
>>
>> This suggests it is ok to map the BRT system in Porto Alegre as bus
>> lane tags on the main ways. However, the map would show a platform on
>> the left side of the way that on reality is on the right side of the
>> buses as they arrive. By mapping as a separated way, one can render a
>> bus map where lines are clearly identified as going through the
>> corridor (faster, reachable only by the middle platforms) or through
>> the main ways (slower, reachable by the sidewalk). So I think mapping
>> separately has more practical value.
>>
>> Here's the list of cities I've sampled: Moscow, Saint Petersburg,
>> Toronto, Melbourne, Berlin, Paris, Milan, Brussels, Antwerp,
>> Amsterdam, The Hague, Stuttgart, Bremen, Leipzig, Dresden, Hanover,
>> Zürich and Manchester. A few odd cases I found that you might want to
>> check out:
>>
>> 52.3545998 4.8884183 Highway and railway tags mixed on same line (akin
>> to maping bus lanes with tags on the main way)
>> 52.0680083 4.288239 Same as previous
>> 43.6513302 -79.3843008 Highway and railway are overlapping ways
>> (probably bad practice, and also seems to break the logic of "one line
>> for each rail track")
>> 53.0806042 8.8297144 Tramway space can be used by non-rail public
>> service vehicles
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 6:20 AM, Richard Mann
>> <richard.mann.westoxford at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Map it one way or the other (I'd say either was acceptable), but don't
>> > switch repeatedly between the two.
>> >
>> > There are many tram systems which only really separate from the road at
>> > stops, with much less separation between stops than your clear white
>> line.
>> >
>> > On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 3:20 AM, Fernando Trebien
>> > <fernando.trebien at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I'd like to hear your opinion on how to properly represent my
>> >> hometown's (Porto Alegre) bus rapid transit (BRT) system, which is
>> >> slightly unusual.
>> >>
>> >> The system consists of bus lanes (buses can switch to/from main
>> >> traffic at any point and do so almost at will along several stretches)
>> >> that become separated from the main ways next to platform/stops, which
>> >> act as physical barriers. Check either:
>> >> - an illustration: http://i.imgur.com/O4MaQhK.jpg
>> >> - the reality:
>> >>
>> https://maps.google.com/maps?layer=c&cbll=-30.008432,-51.183492&cbp=12,84.21,,0,7.43
>> >>
>> >> If strictly following OSM's conventions on separation of ways [1], I
>> >> think it would be represented as lanes:psv=* on many (but not all)
>> >> spans of the main ways, with highway=service ways only next to
>> >> platforms.
>> >>
>> >> After some research, I think this would be a rare, perhaps unique
>> >> ("weird") mapping of a BRT system in OSM. Here
>> >> [http://i.imgur.com/RLdZgDk.png] is an comparison of several major BRT
>> >> systems in reasonably well mapped areas of the world. All of those
>> >> systems are correctly mapped as separated service ways because there
>> >> is continuous physical separation between the busways and main
>> >> traffic. So I'm wondering if, for clarity, my hometown's case
>> >> could/should be mapped "as if" there is continuous physical
>> >> separation, like almost everywhere else.
>> >>
>> >> Notes:
>> >>
>> >> In my comparison table, Mexico City's and Jakarta's BRT systems' stops
>> >> are highlighted because they probably qualify as "bus stations" [2].
>> >>
>> >> Buenos Aires' system is quite similar to Porto Alegre's. They use a
>> >> variety of physical structures between bus lanes and regular lanes,
>> >> but I'm not sure if the smallest ones are considered "physical
>> >> separators" in Argentina. In case they are not, it would turn out as
>> >> the same "weird" situation as in my hometown in some places. The
>> >> Brazilian separators are quite different, but their status as
>> >> "physical separators" is well agreed upon. [3]
>> >>
>> >> An opinion [4] made me wonder if highway=service is indeed adequate
>> >> for these bus tracks. They really don't provide local access to
>> >> "sites" (parking lots, private properties, bus stations, etc.).
>> >> Instead, they allow people to move across vast distances around the
>> >> city, just like regular roads. Maybe they should be
>> >> highway=unclassified as in Brisbane.
>> >>
>> >> I know that Cleveland has a BRT system based solely on bus lanes, but
>> >> with no separation from main traffic next to platforms.
>> >>
>> >> To help anyone interested, below are coordinates of areas that I
>> >> consider "representative examples" of each of those BRT systems. They
>> >> are good starting points for exploration.
>> >>
>> >> -27.4785878 153.0205546 Australia/Brisbane/South East Busway
>> >> 45.4064414 -75.6642915 Canada/Ottawa/Transitway
>> >> -34.5922814 -58.4407038 Argentina/Buenos Aires/Metrobus
>> >> 34.1812658 -118.5534848 USA/Los Angeles/Orange Line
>> >> -23.6915090 -46.5570539 Brazil/São Paulo/Corredor ABD
>> >> -25.4359510 -49.3072766 Brazil/Curitiba/Linha Verde
>> >> 49.4409999 1.0825457 France/Rouen/TEOR
>> >> 47.2060680 -1.5388248 France/Nantes/Busway (line 4)
>> >> 52.2340794 0.1350110 UK/Cambridge/The Busway
>> >> -23.0003967 -43.3829705 Brazil/Rio de Janeiro/TransOeste
>> >> -23.5620123 -46.6124021 Brazil/São Paulo/Expresso Tiradentes
>> >> -6.1878222 106.8229964 Indonesia/Jakarta/TransJakarta Corridor 1
>> >> 19.4036069 -99.1692696 Mexico/Mexico City/Metrobus lines 1-3
>> >>
>> >> [1]
>> >>
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Editing_Standards_and_Conventions#Divided_highways
>> >> [2]
>> >>
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Public_Transport#Station
>> >> [3]
>> >>
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-br/2013-December/004837.html
>> >> [4]
>> >>
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2010-November/005799.html
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Fernando Trebien
>> >> +55 (51) 9962-5409
>> >>
>> >> "Nullius in verba."
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Tagging mailing list
>> >> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Tagging mailing list
>> > Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Fernando Trebien
>> +55 (51) 9962-5409
>>
>> "Nullius in verba."
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20150304/72b1868d/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list