[Talk-transit] Railway route relations

[Peter Miller]

On 9 Jul 2009, at 10:39, Frankie Roberto wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Richard Mann <richard.mann.westoxford at googlemail.com 
> > wrote:
>
> You went off-liste
>
> Dammit. Can we change the reply-to settings? (or has that debate  
> been done to death already?)

I am happy to change the settings for this list, but then it will be  
different from most other lists. Lets have a poll and follow the  
majority. I will stay neutral!

Btw, could a couple of people also offer to be admins for the list and  
get to see all the exciting spam offers (of the normal limited  
variety!) and ban the posters of these messages, oh, and also very  
occasionally spot a genuine post. To give you an idea of the size of  
the problem we get about 1 spam message a day.


Regards,


Peter


>
> I'd think I'd propose an alternative service such as  
> service=heritage (or stick with service=regional):
> type=line
> line=rail
> service=heritage
> ref=abbreviated name of railway (it's not like there's going to be  
> more than one service on the line)
>
> Hmm, looks like I have some re-tagging to do then (after having  
> nearly completed the list at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_United_Kingdom_Independent_and_minor_railways) 
> .
>
> Is there any sense to having a route relation AND a line relation on  
> these types of railways?
>
> Frankie
>
>
> Richard
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 3:54 PM, Frankie Roberto <frankie at frankieroberto.com 
> > wrote:
> Richard Mann wrote:
>
> The public transport schema says we should be tagging rail service  
> relations as:
>
> No route tag
> line=rail
> service = high_speed / long_distance / regional / commuter
> ref = service reference
> nat_ref = national timetable reference
>
> Could anyone offer guidance on how this applies to 'heritage'  
> railways? eg http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/162879 and  
> those listed on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_United_Kingdom_Independent_and_minor_railways
>
> Some of the things I've noted:
>
> * The "routes" (in terms of the the route of the actual trains)  
> usually match 1 to 1 with the physical "line", except:
> * Sometimes the operational line extends beyond the final train  
> station, but trains either don't use that section, or do use these  
> sections, and simply travel to the end of the operational line, stop  
> (but don't let passengers on or off) and then travel back again.
> * Some of the railways have sidings / train sheds mapped - these can  
> be considered part of the overall railway, but aren't part of the  
> route that passengers experience.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> I've also used railway=heritage on some of the relations, as I think  
> this could be more descriptive than railway=preserved (as sometimes  
> the heritage lines operate on newly-built lines/diversions, rather  
> than the exact historical old lines).
>
> Frankie
>
> -- 
> Frankie Roberto
> Experience Designer, Rattle
> 0114 2706977
> http://www.rattlecentral.com
>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Frankie Roberto
> Experience Designer, Rattle
> 0114 2706977
> http://www.rattlecentral.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20090709/82fcc09b/attachment.html>