[Tagging] Mapping busways with alternating physical separation

Wed Mar 4 12:00:09 UTC 2015

I've highlighted that misuse of "bus guideways" in two cases (Nantes
and Mexico City) in my comparison table at the beginning of this
thread [1]. I'd guess these were mapped for the renderer, so probably
worth a map note for local mappers if nobody disagrees.

[1] http://i.imgur.com/RLdZgDk.png

On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 7:14 AM, Mateusz Konieczny <matkoniecz at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>

-- 
Fernando Trebien
+55 (51) 9962-5409

"Nullius in verba."