[Talk-GB] HS2 route is open data!

[Peter Miller]

On 24 January 2012 20:29, Andy Robinson <ajrlists at gmail.com> wrote:

> Fixed now (I hope!). Changeset for the HS2 data is No. 10485263 and
> relation number is 1986960.
>

Neat! Thanks Andy.

I am going to run up the line making a few tweeks. In particular:

1) Add 'proposed=rail' along all elements (to complement the rail=proposed
tag)
2) Add a 'proposed:maxspeed=225/250/400' etc based on the info in the
'design_line_speed' tag.
3) Merge the ways (and relation) with existing tracks where HS2 is 100% on
top of an existing track alignment which it is going to replace. This
certainly appears to be what is planned for part of the route out of London
- I will check the docn first.


Regards,


Peter


> ****
>
> ** **
>
> Cheers****
>
> Andy****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Andy Robinson [mailto:ajrlists at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* 24 January 2012 18:21
>
> *To:* 'Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org'
> *Subject:* RE: [Talk-GB] HS2 route is open data!****
>
> ** **
>
> Please note that it looks like I’ve managed to upload the data twice (at
> least some of it anyway). I’ll revert and sort.****
>
> ** **
>
> Cheers****
>
> Andy****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Andy Robinson [mailto:ajrlists at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* 24 January 2012 17:19
> *To:* 'Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org'
> *Subject:* RE: [Talk-GB] HS2 route is open data!****
>
> ** **
>
> Proposed HS2 route has been added to OSM under changesets 10485788 [1] &
> 10486240[2]. I’ve also added all the ways to a relation 1986944  [3]****
>
> ** **
>
> All data added is separate for any other data in OSM. Ie its not connected
> to any other existing ways.****
>
> Note that the data provided by DfT appears to be the centreline for the
> main runs but at junctions separates out to individual tracks. There is a
> little overlap in these locations and I have not attempted to join the
> former with the latter. I’ve also not simplified any ways (additional nodes
> are only on curves anyway).****
>
> ** **
>
> Tag mapping should be logical. Where both east and west sides have the
> same construction form (eg cutting) then I have added the appropriate tag.
> Where the sides differ I have not but the different side designations have
> been kept throughout (though tag values have been changed to fit better
> with our way of tagging things).****
>
> ** **
>
> For those interested in the process I took the shp file and used ogr2osm
> to convert it to an osm file with the script referring to a translation
> file to map the shp file attributes to osm tags. There was some node
> duplication and other minor unconnected way issues with the data which I
> cleaned up manually in JOSM before uploading.****
>
> ** **
>
> Cheers****
>
> Andy****
>
> ** **
>
> [1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/10485788****
>
> [2] http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/10486240****
>
> [3] http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1986944 ****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Andy Robinson [mailto:ajrlists at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* 23 January 2012 22:39
> *To:* 'Peter Miller'; 'David Earl'
> *Cc:* 'Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org'
> *Subject:* RE: [Talk-GB] HS2 route is open data!****
>
> ** **
>
> I’m separating out the various sections (cutting, tunnel etc) to separate
> shape files and converting to lat/lon. I’ll have a play with it in JOSM
> once done. I’m splitting with whatever the west side attribute is (the east
> side may be different where the natural ground slopes etc).****
>
> ** **
>
> I’ll put all the various files on dev once I’m done.****
>
> ** **
>
> Cheers****
>
> Andy****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Peter Miller [mailto:peter.miller at itoworld.com]
> *Sent:* 23 January 2012 20:59
> *To:* David Earl
> *Cc:* Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Talk-GB] HS2 route is open data!****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> On 23 January 2012 20:27, David Earl <david at frankieandshadow.com> wrote:**
> **
>
> On 23/01/2012 20:21, Jason Cunningham wrote:****
>
> Good to see the data being released,
> But.... I don't believe this "proposed" route should yet be added to OSM.
> You'll regularly here the phrase "map what's on the ground", but we
> all(?) accept upcoming changes to "what's on the ground" can be mapped,
> and these upcoming changes to the land are mapped using the proposed tag
> (then construction tag).****
>
> ** **
>
> By that reasoning we wouldn't map boundaries, as these don't appear "on
> the ground", they are entirely abstract concepts.
>
> The point here is that this is *helpful geographical information*. If the
> proposal goes away or changes, remove the data. Let's be pragmatic here.**
> **
>
>  ****
>
> I agree that one should not add every aspirational route, however this is
> much more than an aspiration and there is considerable support for it from
> official sources. I believe we should indeed add transport proposals where
> they have committed funding and official firm support. We should of course
> tag is as 'proposed'. If the project goes ahead we change it to
> 'consturction', if it goes cold then we delete it. Fyi, I did just that on
> the Tintewhistle bypass to the east of Manchester. I added it when it was
> funded and and in the HA plans and then removed it when the public inquiry
> collapsed a while later.
>
> It is of course up to map rendering script to determine if it is
> appropriate render 'proposed' transport schemes and this will depend on the
> use to which it is to be put. Mapquest probably wouldn't show them (because
> mapquest are primarily providing maps for the traveler. OSM Mapnik will
> probably show it because it tries to map almost everything. Other mapping
> outlets can make their own decision.
>
> Good news re rendering HS2 for use in Potlatch. One suggestion...  I
> notice that the shape file contains details of cuttings, embankments,
> bridges (and viaducts) and tunnels. Could you present that using distinct
> colours or textures or something? It is tagged separately for each side of
> the route, ie eastside=cutting.
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Peter
>   ****
>
>
> We also seem to mark routes of old railways for which there is no evidence
> on the ground. (Quite why, I don't know, and this raises the question again
> of representing any historical data, but that was discussed at length
> recently).
>
> David****
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb****
>
> ** **
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20120125/ff4388f7/attachment.html>