[Talk-us] Rail westerly

[stevea]

>On Dec 20, 2014, at 12:35 PM, stevea wrote:
>  > Yes, I'll use owner= if known, and it is name= which displays in 
>ORM as the name of the line.  Many lines had name= as the service 
>run upon them (like Caltrain instead of Union Pacific), and I have 
>corrected this where I know it was wrong in OSM.  But I haven't 
>corrected all of these, just the ones I know.  And now I think I'll 
>have to go back and correct name=Union Pacific as the name of Union 
>Pacific's subdivision for the line that Caltrain is run upon: 
>Caltrain itself should be a relation.  And so on.

Tod Fitch replies:
>I was under the very strong impression that the main line from San 
>Jose to San Francisco is owned by the Joint Powers Board (CalTrain) 
>and not by Union Pacific. I believe that there are branches off that 
>owned by Union Pacific and maybe even BNSF but that the main right 
>of way was actually Caltrain's. Any place one could confirm or deny 
>that?

Let's suppose Joint Powers Board is the owner.  Does that mean that 
owner=Joint Powers Board, operator=Caltrain (and a route relation for 
Caltrain's services:  Baby Bullet and Local) is correct?  What do we 
put into the name= tag?  A subdivision name?  Perhaps "Joint Powers 
Board" (as well as, or instead of the owner tag)?

As I look in the (excellent) "CPUC_Rail_Crossing_List_v20140603.xls" 
document recently pointed to, I find no occurrence of "Joint Powers 
Board" in the whole sheet.  Though, I do recognize it as a real 
entity that administers the Caltrain service (and it may own the 
track, too).  I do find "PCIX:  Caltrain" in the Rail System column, 
though, so that is a good indication we might put PCIX, Caltrain, or 
PCIX:Caltrain in the name= tag.

It seems we are still a little unclear on how to (fully, "properly") 
tag rail in the USA, with California trying to be a leader in OSM 
(again), but at least this discussion seems to be getting us closer. 
Good!

SteveA
California