[Talk-us] Rail westerly

[Alexander Jones]

stevea wrote:

> Alexander Jones wrote:
>> * I'm in the process of retracing most of the current and abandoned lines
>> in the San Joaquin Valley south of Stockton. Especially on the BNSF line,
>> don't waste your time.
> 
> I'm not sure why you think this is waste of time, but I appreciate
> the heads-up that you are working here!

I was trying to say, "Let's not duplicate work." It's not a waste, but I 
wanted to let you know I was going to be remapping that segment anyway.

>
>> * I generally use 7 tags: railway=rail, operator=, old_railway_operator=,
>> name=, usage=, electrified=, and gauge=.
> 
> 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.
>

If Wikipedia is to be believed, Caltrain owns the track between San 
Francisco and Tamien Station, and the UP owns the track south to Gilroy.

>> * I still use old-fashioned (according to OpenRailwayMap) route=railway
>> relations for the tracks. I don't think the relations are rendered, but
>> I'm not completely sure. But I keep the IDs in the org-mode files I use 
>> to manage my work, so I could always switch the tag out if needed.
> 
> I didn't quite follow that (and I agree:  it appears route relations
> are not rendered in ORM).

Sorry. I was noting the software I use for managing my rail remap projects.

> Charlotte wrote:
>>Thanks for the tip about openrailwaymap.org. I have aligned many
>>railroads in Arizona and added many others. But I distrust the naming
>>there, so I just have left that alone.
>>Also, I don't know how to do relations, so, if you finish
>>California, feel free to make relations in Arizona.
> 
> Relations can be a challenge for some OSM contributors.  While it is
> technically possible to edit relations with either iD or Potlatch 2,
> I don't recommend it, as the GUI is klunky, confusing and
> error-prone.  JOSM is a much better editor to edit relations in OSM
> (imo), and while there is a learning curve that takes practice to get
> the hang of it, it is relatively short and is "only a small mountain
> to conquer."  You can do it!

Learning JOSM is well worth it if you're going to do any complex mapping.

> 
> Great to see this enthusiasm and good communication.
> 
> SteveA
> California
> 

Alexander