[OSM-talk] building entrances

Peter Miller peter.miller at itoworld.com
Mon Oct 15 14:39:23 BST 2007


Interesting. You might (or might not!) be interested in this new CEN
standard to describe stations and other complex interchanges (I have been on
the fringes of the working group).
http://www.naptan.org.uk/ifopt/index.htm

Also, Transmodel is a good underlying model for public transport, alarming
in its complexity at first glance (and second glance for that matter),
however one can describe just about anything using it and if you are looking
at complex underground shared infrastructure it will have some useful things
to say on the modelling side. Much of transmodel is totally irrelevant to
this project and can be ignored.

Transmode has Infrastructure Links (which are similar to our ways) and these
are built up into Routes and Lines with schedules for different transport
modes associated with them.
http://www.transmodel.org/en/cadre1.html




Regards,




Peter



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Chilton [mailto:S.L.Chilton at mdx.ac.uk]
> Sent: 15 October 2007 13:54
> To: Peter Miller; Frederik Ramm
> Cc: talk at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: RE: [OSM-talk] building entrances
> 
> I too find railway stations hard to deal with. Over the last few days I
> have been trying to make some sense of the London tube line network and
> it's associated stations. There are many variants of station arrangements
> - different stations called the same thing in slightly different locations
> and serving different tube lines. Just putting a node called that station
> name doesn't work in this situation. Is this a case for relation(ships) -
> which I don't claim to have understood yet - as you don't want multiple
> versions of station names occurring in renders?
> In passing - I have used an out-of-copyright Geographer's Map Company map
> of London (which shows the actual alignment of the early underground
> sections) to re-align some of the tube lines a bit, and in the process
> remove some of the anomalous tube line "turnings" that occurred at some
> stations (there was a 90 degree turn at one station location!). These are
> beginning to show up in the most recent rendering.
> 
> NB: then there is the whole issue of tube lines sharing tunnels/lines with
> train lines and how to show that so that if required one could select from
> the database only the tube or train data for specific purposes.
> 
> Cheers
> STEVE
> 
> Steve Chilton, Learning Support Fellow
> Learning and Technical Support Unit Manager
> School of Health and Social Sciences
> Middlesex University
> phone/fax: 020 8411 5355
> email: steve8 at mdx.ac.uk
> 
> Chair of the Society of Cartographers: http://www.soc.org.uk/
> 
> SoC conference 2007:
> http://www.port.ac.uk/special/soc/
> 
> Mind the (Map) Gap:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/5413010.stm
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: talk-bounces at openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-
> bounces at openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Peter Miller
> Sent: 15 October 2007 13:16
> To: 'Frederik Ramm'
> Cc: talk at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] building entrances
> 
> 
> My primary request was for a surface building with an outline (tagged as
> 'building=yes/hospital/whatever') and to have nodes within that outline
> with
> 'entrance=whatever' within the perimeter. No explicit relationship is
> required in this case. I have tagged some entrances in the hospital here,
> but of course they don't render yet:
> http://informationfreeway.org/?lat=52.05782126014528&lon=1.198195939997642
> 5&
> zoom=16&layers=0000F0B0
> 
> 
> I think underground stations are a special case in that they don't have an
> obvious perimeter. Other stations are all muddled in with shopping centres
> (Birmingham New Street for example). For these cases with a clear boundary
> on the surface then relationships would certainly be useful and bind them
> together. I would be interested in seeing how to model some London
> stations
> in the near future this way.
> 
> We should probably include platforms as well (I was at a railway station
> last week with 4 platforms, with three different 'entrances' each of which
> served a subset of the platforms by going up and down lots of steps). I
> think the 'station' itself should also be included as a feature, either as
> a
> point or an area as appropriate, together with a number of entrance
> features, platform features and linking walkways/steps/etc to join them
> up.
> 
> 
> 
> Peter
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Frederik Ramm [mailto:frederik at remote.org]
> > Sent: 15 October 2007 12:36
> > To: Peter Miller
> > Cc: talk at openstreetmap.org
> > Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] building entrances
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > > Are there any recommended ways of indicating an entrance to a
> > > building?
> >
> > No recommended ones that I'm aware of but at last for large buildings
> > with multiple entrances, it might be a good idea to have a relation
> > that groups the buildings's outline and its entrances. That would
> > also give you room, if you want, to add the building outline and the
> > perimeter fence.  I think this could also be valuable for modelling
> > entrances to underground stations. I have put something here:
> >
> > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Relations/Proposed/Buildings
> >
> > Bye
> > Frederik
> >
> > --
> > Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00.09' E008°23.33'
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk






More information about the talk mailing list