Martin Atkins wrote:
>Refine the basic railway=* tagging to have a more specific definition,
>taking inspiration from the tagging conventions around highway=* .
IMO this is flawed in two ways:
- on empty highways, one can drive in circles on the whole road surface (not
that one may or should, bu
I too think that tracks should just be a single lane. From the reasons stated
above put more by Kytömaa Lauri more eloquently than I will. If a road has a
physical split it is 2 separate one way streets. Tracks are physically
separate so they should be mapped as such.
Roads and the crossings of mu
On 04/13/2013 04:21 AM, Kytömaa Lauri wrote:
Martin Atkins wrote:
Refine the basic railway=* tagging to have a more specific definition,
taking inspiration from the tagging conventions around highway=* .
IMO this is flawed in two ways:
- on empty highways, one can drive in circles on the whol
On 04/13/2013 04:54 AM, Rovastar wrote:
As San Fran doesn't look like it has many railways I suggest you look at
locations around the world maybe UK that has a detailed rail infrastructure
so you get a better understanding about how it is done there.
Yes, I have looked at examples from elsewh
On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 1:11 AM, Martin Atkins wrote:
> - Adapt the "lanes" tagging scheme from highways to allow descriptions of
> individual tracks of a railway where railway mappers find that detail to be
> interesting.
>
Dead on arrival, as far as I'm concerned, for reasons previously mention
On 04/13/2013 09:40 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 1:11 AM, Martin Atkins mailto:m...@degeneration.co.uk>> wrote:
- Adapt the "lanes" tagging scheme from highways to allow
descriptions of individual tracks of a railway where railway mappers
find that detail to be in
Martin,
The example you gave for tunnels and bridges are the same for roads as well.
If you have a bridge or tunnel with 2 roads (one for each one-way) and a
train line(s) and footpath each will be a tagged with a separate bridge. So
in that regard rail is actually are consistent with the road net
On 13.04.2013 08:11, Martin Atkins wrote:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Railway_Schematic_Mapping
You are touching a tricky issue with a proposal that is honest about its
limitations, so I welcome the constructive input. But unfortunately, I
doubt it is the right way to go
On 04/13/2013 10:18 AM, Rovastar wrote:
Martin,
The example you gave for tunnels and bridges are the same for roads as well.
If you have a bridge or tunnel with 2 roads (one for each one-way) and a
train line(s) and footpath each will be a tagged with a separate bridge. So
in that regard rail is
On 04/13/2013 10:36 AM, Tobias Knerr wrote:
[snip the details]
To sum this up: I'm aware that we have unsolved problems with our
railway mapping scheme, and that it is hard to serve the needs of many
different use cases at once. But your proposal feels like giving up and
focusing exclusively on
Hello again,
Based on the great feedback I got about the proposal I've updated in an
attempt to address the following concerns:
- Representing multiple tracks with a single way doesn't make sense
because trains can't "change lanes": I scrapped that part of the
proposal in favor of a new sep
> Croydon Tramlink is one counter-example, and I'd concede that someone has
done great work in accurately mapping the path of it that I wouldn't want
> to destroy, but it is sadly completely disconnected from the highway
network, and that is what I'd like to address.
As a Croydon mapper myself who
David Fisher wrote:
> > Croydon Tramlink is one counter-example, and I'd concede that
> someone has
> done great work in accurately mapping the path of it that I wouldn't
> want
> > to destroy, but it is sadly completely disconnected from the highway
> network, and that is what I'd like to addres
Sorry, yes, "one way per track", of course. Was writing hurriedly.
Thanks,
David.
On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 9:06 PM, John F. Eldredge wrote:
> David Fisher wrote:
>>
>> > Croydon Tramlink is one counter-example, and I'd concede that someone
>> has done great work in accurately mapping the path o
FWIW I also prefer one way per track. When the tracks are embedded in the
tarmac of a normal 2 way street, I'll draw 3 ways (2 railways and 1
highway), each with the name included. When I bother to add
associatedStreet relations I'd add all of them into it.
When it's 1 track on a one way street (or
On 04/13/2013 12:52 PM, David Fisher wrote:
Anyway. My two cents, for what it's worth: I am strongly in favour of
mapping highways and railways differently (one way per separated piece
of tarmac for roads; one way per rail for railways). One form of
compromise, however, could be to treat spec
I'd still stick to one-way-per-track for consistency, especially given many
cities (London, Portland) have 100% complete systems mapped already using
that method, and it's not just torturing the data. Your assumptions of how
trams interact with traffic are also pretty far from universal, with
Port
17 matches
Mail list logo
