[Talk-transit] Railway route relations

Frankie Roberto frankie at frankieroberto.com
Tue Aug 4 23:37:50 BST 2009


Hi all,

I'm still keen to try and nail this public transport service vs
infrastructure issue.

I think this mainly applies to railways, however, as I've mentioned before,
I'm trying out a few of the ideas on the UK's much smaller list of tram
networks.

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Trams details where I've
got to so far.

The Tramlink in Croydon (London) is a good example of where the the
infrastructure (the track network) is clearly different from the tram
service patterns (routes 1 to 3).

The routes are currently mapped with a relation tagged as type=route,
route=tram.

I've just created a relation for the network as a whole (see
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/189917). For the type being,
it's tagged as type=network, network=tram as well as
public_transport=network from Sebastians proposal.

Are there any other views on how this should be tagged? Perhaps the network
shouldn't be tagged at all, under the "relations aren't for categories"
principle?

I'm also of the opinion that we should stick to using type=route,
route=tram/railway for the train/tram service patterns, rather than the
infrastructure. However, this appears to be the opposite of what's written
in http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Oxomoa/Public_transport_schema

Thoughts?


Frankie

On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 10:25 PM, Frankie Roberto <
frankie at frankieroberto.com> wrote:

>
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 8:27 PM, Jochen Topf <jochen at remote.org> wrote:
>
>  > The first question is what does route=railway denote, the infrastructure
>> or
>> > the service pattern?
>>
>> This has been solved in Sebastians proposal:
>>
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Oxomoa/Public_transport_schema#Differentiation_between_railway_lines_and_railway_routes
>
>
> Thanks for the link, I hadn't seen this. I agree with Peter that we need to
> bring these various proposals together, form some kind of consensus, and
> document it fully on the main wiki pages (eg
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Routes)
>
> Interestingly, if I understand it correctly, the division between "route"
> and "line" in Sebastian's proposal is exactly opposite to what I'd
> intuitively have guessed at from the words.  eg, we have the "West Coast
> Main Line" (the infrastructure or rail corridor) and "the route of the
> Flying Scotsman" (the schedule service route).
>
> So if it was me, I think I'd name them the opposite way round. However, so
> long as we document them clearly (with examples), I guess it doesn't matter
> too much which words we use.
>
> As a first step, I think it'd be useful to look at some concrete examples,
> see how they're currently tagged in OSM, and suggest ways in which the
> various schemes would be applied.
>
> I've started doing this a bit with the UK's tram networks (
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Trams), which so far use
> route=tram to tag the service patterns of the trams (which seem to sometimes
> be called lines, and sometimes routes).
>

-- 
Frankie Roberto
Experience Designer, Rattle
0114 2706977
http://www.rattlecentral.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-transit/attachments/20090804/092972e2/attachment.html>


More information about the Talk-transit mailing list