[Talk-transit] Railway route relations

Peter Miller peter.miller at itoworld.com
Tue Jul 7 10:43:15 BST 2009

On 6 Jul 2009, at 21:24, Melchior Moos wrote:

> Hi,
> 2009/7/6 Brian Prangle <bprangle at googlemail.com>
> I've experimented with the section of the West Coast Mainline  
> between B'ham New St and B'ham International: I've added a train  
> (i.e service) relation with ref=WCML and also a railway (i.e  
> physical) relation with ref =17.01 ( the SRS for the section of  
> track) to see how it rendered in opnvkarte. I'd appreciate people's  
> opinions now the render engine has caught up. Personally I don't  
> like it and I think the physical stuff is better tagged on the ways;  
> opnvkarte is a public transport map and should show services
> My interest in infrastructure relations is not very high, the only  
> reason I'm rendering them is, that there were (or maybe are) some  
> service routes that are tagged with route=railway. Rendering them  
> enables people to see the fault. The main focus of öpnvkarte lies on  
> the service relations.

I think the problem is that we are using the term Route for at least  
two different things. Are there not reasons why one might what to  
create a relation for the West Coast Main Line 'infrastructure/ 
physical/track' or the East Suffolk Line 'infrastructure/physical/ 
track' or a particular SRS section 'infrastructure/physical/track' as  
distinct from path used by a particular rail operator or by a  
particular public transport service? Should we not provide a way of  
doing both even if both are not always populated? Why do we not  
proposed a different way of coding relations for the railways, SRS  
sections etc and ensure that these are not rendered on opnvkarte  
rather than dump the whole idea?

Personally I see this being a very useful piece of information about  
the Peterborough to Ely line and like the way the relation overlays on  
the slippery map for more detail:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/142758 (relation for  
Peter to Ely line)

I have done something similar for the Cambridgeshire Guided Busway  
which I have found very useful



> regards,
> Melchior
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-transit mailing list
> Talk-transit at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-transit/attachments/20090707/8d7cf2f7/attachment.html>

More information about the Talk-transit mailing list