[Talk-transit] Vertical Levels (Layers) versus Altitude for stations
Peter Miller
peter.miller at itoworld.com
Fri Sep 4 07:32:43 BST 2009
In the absence of a vast building program of new monorails[1] as
proposed by Bill Ricker, I am beginning to think about mapping some of
the more complex transport interchanges here in the UK. I am currently
adding platforms, walkways and steps to the simpler stations that I
know and am now thinking about more complex ones.
Bill also talked about the use of the layer tag on some stations on
the monorail at Disney with the stations at layer 3 and the track at
layer 2 and I think it would be useful to talk about how we can
usefully use layer tags for complex interchanges.
I checked out the IFOPT CEN standard[2] on the subject and found this
useful section on "Vertical Levels (Layers) versus Altitude" (they
call them levels, we call them layers btw)
1.4.6 Vertical Levels versus Altitude
Transport interchanges are often complex buildings with many
interconnected levels. The
labelling and description of the levels is used in describing stops
and directions in PT info
systems and so needs to be part of the Fixed Object model. This LEVEL
is a distinct concept
from that of a vertical spatial coordinate in that it is a semantic
label (for example
Departures, Basement , Floor 1, etc). Altitude is in effect the z
coordinate of a POINT.
I think this useful for us and clarifies that if the station appears
to be organised on two 'layers' (using OSM terminology) then it
doesn't matter that in fact one of the layers incorporates an incline
at one point so that part of 'layer' it is at a different altitude to
another part. If of course if there is a slope which connects two
different distinct layers of the station (something which could also
occur) then we should consider that to be a path between the layers.
The logic is that when we start mapping more complex 3D stations (and
other structures) then we shouldn't get too stressed about altitude,
but should instead divide the place up into human understandable
layers. This is something that is often done anyway in diagrams that
describe the layout of stations[3] and ships[4].
When we come to map this we are going to need an editor that can allow
us to see only one level at a time, but there is a growing need for
editors to allow one to focus on one aspect of the data only and avoid
picking up or modifying features that are out-of-scope anyway so I am
sure that will come. While being focused on a particular layer then
any features added would be added at that layer.
We would also need to consider slope, steps and lifts between layers
and the situation where a lift only connects some layers but not all
of them. A lift is currently represented as a single node because it
is vertical. How does one indicate which layers it connects? How would
one assign layers to a complex metro station where one can't guess the
depth of each element - possibly one would have to count steps and
measure the height of one of them to calculate a depth for each
platform and therefore assign layers.. but that still does solve the
problem for escalators.... So, possibly we can be kept occupied even
without a massive monorail program.
Fun stuff ;)
Peter
[1] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-transit/2009-September/000593.html
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identification_of_Fixed_Objects_In_Public_Transport
[3] http://home.wangjianshuo.com/archives/20080105_shanghai_metro_century_avenue_station.htm
[4] http://www.wildalaskacruises.com/capabilities.htm
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-transit/attachments/20090904/e23107bf/attachment.html>
More information about the Talk-transit
mailing list