[Talk-us] Rail westerly

[Charlotte Wolter]

Steve,

         Yes, any explanation of the difference between "main" and 
"branch" lines and "owner" is appreciated. I find myself rather 
confused at the moment.
         For instance, why does the BNSF line across Arizona and into 
New Mexico change to "Gallup Subdivision" at one point to the west of 
the city of Gallup? It seems to be still the BNSF main line. Further, 
other "subdivisions," such as the Springerville (Ariz.) Subdivision, 
clearly seem to be branches. So, when is a line a subdivision?
         If I get a handle on this and other distinctions, I can make 
corrections (or explanations) ... I think.

Best wishes,

Charlotte


At 11:17 AM 12/29/2014, you wrote:
>Hello Nathan, Tod, Alexander, Minh and Charlotte:
>
>Thank you for responding to my talk-us posts about rail.  I'm having 
>multiple conversations about this, to a large extent with Alexander 
>Jones, as he is emerging as a local "expert" (well, "more 
>experienced") w.r.t. rail in OSM.  Especially with how it renders 
>with ORM.  There are many good resources (public, and compatible 
>with OSM's ODBL) to use, both in California (and perhaps YOUR 
>state!) and federally.  For the latter, Alexander recommends 
><http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/OfficeofSafety/publicsite/crossing/xingqryloc.aspx>http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/OfficeofSafety/publicsite/crossing/xingqryloc.aspx 
>.  He also has (and has sent to me, please ask him) an excellent 
>spreadsheet which flatten/simplify what might be called a good first 
>cut at a branching structure.
>
>I have also found truly complete, excellent (down to signals, etc.) 
>rail maps on "rail fan" sites.  These essentially give us all we 
>need (one was in .kmz format, which JOSM simply read and could 
>almost be "imported" directly into OSM).  However, they are 
>specifically copyrighted and not compatible with OSM's ODBL, alas I 
>almost feel I cannot even continue to view such documentation, lest 
>it "pollute" OSM with copyrighted data (similar to looking at Google 
>Maps, which I strenuously avoid!)  What this means is that "the data 
>are out there" and that dedicated persons can compile them with 
>research and patience.  So, OSM volunteers can do this, but it WILL 
>be a LOT of work.
>
>I agree with Nathan that usage=main and usage=branch can be quite 
>tricky to "know" how to tag, and that there appears to be an 
>essentially subjective interpretation about which tag (if any of 
>these) is appropriate for any given line.  I am in the process of 
>writing a "ten day review" post to talk-us about this, which I will 
>post after I send all of you this email.
>
>USA rail in OSM is a large subject to tackle, which will take a 
>great deal of effort by many.  The essential step of better 
>understanding, agreeing amongst ourselves and harmonizing all of the 
>tagging necessarily comes first.  I propose a new WikiProject, but I 
>do not have the bandwidth to do this all by myself, as I remain busy 
>with our USBRS WikiProject.
>
>To address MInh's question about Cincinnati, CNO&TP and NS, I'd say 
>that "owner=City of Cincinnati" is correct, and "operator=NS" and 
>"name=CNO&TP" capture it accurately.  But this is just one of many 
>examples of how difficult these often complex 
>leasing/ownership/operator arrangements can be with rail.
>
>In short, I am interested in continuing this, but with limits to my 
>abilities to do so.  I invite all of you to please stay in touch 
>with me and each other about this if you like, and even to "recruit" 
>other OSM volunteers to better coordinate what might become a more 
>formal effort, whether in California, another state or region, or 
>over the whole of the USA.  And if anybody starts a WikiProject for 
>USA rail, I'd be thrilled!
>
>Best regards,
>
>Steve All
>Santa Cruz, California

Charlotte Wolter
927 18th Street Suite A
Santa Monica, California
90403
+1-310-597-4040
techlady at techlady.com
Skype: thetechlady

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20141229/0c601580/attachment.html>