[Talk-transit] Railway route relations
peter.miller at itoworld.com
Wed Aug 5 08:00:39 BST 2009
On 4 Aug 2009, at 23:37, Frankie Roberto wrote:
> Hi all,
> I'm still keen to try and nail this public transport service vs
> infrastructure issue.
I have create a new wiki-page 'Public transport schema 2' based on
Oxomoa's proposal on the main wiki based on the last edit made before
the big revert. I have added a bit of information about the relation
you refer to in the 'infrastructure' section , but more is needed:-
This is very much a proposal to discuss and develop which I see it as
being the top-level transit description which links out to more
detailed articles (some of which already exist) to create a coherent
> 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
> 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>
> > The first question is what does route=railway denote, the
> infrastructure or
> > the service pattern?
> This has been solved in Sebastians proposal:
> 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
> Talk-transit mailing list
> Talk-transit at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Talk-transit