[Talk-transit] local_ref problem around Anerley in NAPTAN

Peter Miller peter.miller at itoworld.com
Wed Sep 2 16:42:19 BST 2009


On 2 Sep 2009, at 16:27, Richard Mann wrote:

> 1) Would it make sense to seek permision from TfL to derive  
> labelling information from their website maps. It's such a rich  
> source of info, it'd be a pity not to try. They're a bit daft  
> putting copyright on their spider diagrams - if I were them, I'd  
> want them to be copied.

Sounds worth a go. There is also a difference between accessing a few  
'facts' from their spider maps than reproducing them. One legitimate  
reason for disallowing reproduction is to ensure that out of date ones  
are not displayed. Another good reason to contact authorities in this  
way is to raise the profile of OSM.

>
> 2) I don't like the idea of ways for platforms, except possibly for  
> the limited case where you've got one platform on each side. It's  
> just not extendable. They should be areas. Sublettering for parts of  
> platforms should probably be on nodes, representing the point on the  
> platform that's the midpoint for boarding a train that stops at that  
> platform (it will be in the timetable system as "2a", and a notional  
> router ought to direct you to that point). If a platform is split  
> into 2a and 2b, you probably need three nodes - 2a/2b and 2 (for  
> trains that take up the full length).

Personally I find linear ways pretty satisfactory for platforms, which  
often have no more width than a footpath after all (which are also  
tagged as linear features)/ Possibly we should use areas for larger  
platforms (ie the paved/tarmac area) with highway=pedestrian;area=yes  
and then add railway=platform ways to the edges of the area as  
required. Sub platforms can also be linear ways for their actual  
extent (I don't like using nodes  for sub-platforms because they do  
have an extent which can be measured and is sometimes be important).  
For a platform that serves two tracks, one of either side then an area  
should be used with the two different sides having appropriate linear  
'platforms' associated with them. I am not sure how to represent a set  
of steps coming down to a point in the middle of an area though. One  
reason to use linear ways for now is because we already have the tools  
to build, render and route models that use them. Areas are fine with  
side accesses, but not top and bottom accesses.


Regards,


Peer


>
> Richard
>
> On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 1:17 PM, Frankie Roberto <frankie at frankieroberto.com 
> > wrote:
>
>
> 2009/9/2 Shaun McDonald <shaun at shaunmcdonald.me.uk>
>
>
> That was ages ago that I done that. I have added those extra details  
> to a few stations, in some cases even adding the platform numbers.  
> It does become more difficult when there are island platforms. The  
> reason why I have been adding them is from a desire to know how to  
> access the station, and how to access the platforms. It is also an  
> increased detail thing.
>
> I had a discussion about island platforms on the wiki a while back  
> (see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/unified_stoparea#Sheffield) 
> . When I mapped Sheffield Station (http://www.openstreetmap.org/?relation=79249 
> ) I noted that some platforms have up to 6 different names (2A, 2B,  
> 3, 4, 5A, 5B).
>
> The options as I see it are:
>
> * stick all the names in a single ref= tag, semi-colon or comma  
> separated (the former seems to be the convention?)
> * add the names to the stopping points (the node on the actual  
> railway way).
> * splitting the platform way into different ways (eg two halves) and  
> then tagging those separately (although this still leaves you the  
> problem of different names for the different 'edges').
> * doing something complicated with relations.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Frankie
>
> -- 
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20090902/24ccb0f3/attachment.html>


More information about the Talk-transit mailing list