[Tagging] defining service on railway=tram

Mateusz Konieczny matkoniecz at tutanota.com
Wed Jan 23 19:36:11 UTC 2019

Jan 23, 2019, 3:53 PM by jarek at piorkowski.ca:

> I sense a potential difficulty in defining these with iron-clad
> accuracy. I'm not sure if that's needed, or is it acceptable to use a
> "you'll know it when you see it" guideline?
I would give up attempts at precise definitions that always work.
Even for such basic things as distinguishing trains, light rail, subway and trams
from each other. I remember case of system where
describing it as tram and trolleybus would both be fine.

Some degree of "nearly always" is typically necessary.

> One more thought: in some systems, you have frequent service (several
> times an hour) on "normal" routes and tracks, but a few stops or turn
> tracks are used couple of times a day by "depot trips": by vehicles
> that are heading towards the yard but technically remain in service
> and can be boarded by passengers (in Polish "zjazd do zajezdni"). IMO
> I would exclude those from "normal service" if they happen to travel
> over track unique to them. But I'm not exactly sure how to define it
> without also including smaller systems (tourist- or commute-focused)
> that might only have a couple of trips per day in all.
> Or maybe we should just let local mappers decide themselves what is
> part of the "normal" system.
It may be the best solution, but attempt to have some guide/hints would be valuable.
But yes, differences between tram systems are significant (I guess that is because
unlike trains each track system is separate and in part develops on its own).

> Here an attempt at making the guidelines more exact:
> 1. no service tag is given to:
> a. tracks serving a stop where a passenger can expect to regularly
> board a tram and be subject to the normal fare system
> b. tracks that a scheduled tram servicing a route connecting stops as
> detailed in 1a travels over
> (Commentary:
> 1a. So, with a "usual" ticket. If the area/city/system offers a
> monthly ticket, it should be valid on this tram. Zone fares are
> included in systems that use them, special "excursion" or "railfan"
> tickets are excluded.
> 1b. This is intended to cover end-route loops and normally-used bits
> of tracks with no stops on them.)
I am not sure is "normal fare system" useful. In (theoretical) case with tram
in my city going outside the central zone and into agglomeration zone with
separate fare system - I would not add service tags.

> 2. service=yard is given to:
> a. tracks within tram storage and work areas ("yards", "garages",
> "depots" - where trams are parked overnight, maintained, light
> repairs)
> b. tracks leading to the yard (connecting to tracks described in 2a.),
> provided they aren't covered by point 1 (that is, no regular passenger
> service stops)
> 3. service=crossover is given to crossover tracks where dual-ended
> trams change direction. Only use it between two main tracks with no
> service tag, otherwise use service tag of the tracks that are
> connected.
> 4. service=siding is given to tracks not covered by points 1, 2, or 3
> above. It is intended for tracks that are not used for normally
> scheduled passenger service, including diversion-only, emergency,
> non-revenue trackage, as well as turn tracks not used in normal
> scheduled passenger service.
I see no problems here.

> Is that too detailed? Not precise enough?
Seems OK for me, style is a bit unusual ("as detailed in 1a") but it may be easily changed by 
someone who dislikes it.

*goes to add service=siding on nearby tram loop*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190123/6f3e7ff1/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list