I assume there is no opposition to either method then. Most tram systems are mapped as individual ways (usually in parallel pairs), even when they share space with cars and have no physical separation. I'm not really acquainted with tramway mapping (they're very rare in Brazil), but I tried to sample various cities (see list below) and what I found is that, where the street is drawn as a single way and cars share space with trams, a platform that is a physical divider essentially never really causes the road to be drawn as separated lines. The road is usually divided for its entire length for other reasons (I'm guessing it's usually due to local law requiring cars to stay out of the tramway except when turning at intersections or reaching a destination at the opposite side).
This suggests it is ok to map the BRT system in Porto Alegre as bus lane tags on the main ways. However, the map would show a platform on the left side of the way that on reality is on the right side of the buses as they arrive. By mapping as a separated way, one can render a bus map where lines are clearly identified as going through the corridor (faster, reachable only by the middle platforms) or through the main ways (slower, reachable by the sidewalk). So I think mapping separately has more practical value. Here's the list of cities I've sampled: Moscow, Saint Petersburg, Toronto, Melbourne, Berlin, Paris, Milan, Brussels, Antwerp, Amsterdam, The Hague, Stuttgart, Bremen, Leipzig, Dresden, Hanover, Zürich and Manchester. A few odd cases I found that you might want to check out: 52.3545998 4.8884183 Highway and railway tags mixed on same line (akin to maping bus lanes with tags on the main way) 52.0680083 4.288239 Same as previous 43.6513302 -79.3843008 Highway and railway are overlapping ways (probably bad practice, and also seems to break the logic of "one line for each rail track") 53.0806042 8.8297144 Tramway space can be used by non-rail public service vehicles On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 6:20 AM, Richard Mann <richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com> wrote: > Map it one way or the other (I'd say either was acceptable), but don't > switch repeatedly between the two. > > There are many tram systems which only really separate from the road at > stops, with much less separation between stops than your clear white line. > > On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 3:20 AM, Fernando Trebien > <fernando.treb...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I'd like to hear your opinion on how to properly represent my >> hometown's (Porto Alegre) bus rapid transit (BRT) system, which is >> slightly unusual. >> >> The system consists of bus lanes (buses can switch to/from main >> traffic at any point and do so almost at will along several stretches) >> that become separated from the main ways next to platform/stops, which >> act as physical barriers. Check either: >> - an illustration: http://i.imgur.com/O4MaQhK.jpg >> - the reality: >> https://maps.google.com/maps?layer=c&cbll=-30.008432,-51.183492&cbp=12,84.21,,0,7.43 >> >> If strictly following OSM's conventions on separation of ways [1], I >> think it would be represented as lanes:psv=* on many (but not all) >> spans of the main ways, with highway=service ways only next to >> platforms. >> >> After some research, I think this would be a rare, perhaps unique >> ("weird") mapping of a BRT system in OSM. Here >> [http://i.imgur.com/RLdZgDk.png] is an comparison of several major BRT >> systems in reasonably well mapped areas of the world. All of those >> systems are correctly mapped as separated service ways because there >> is continuous physical separation between the busways and main >> traffic. So I'm wondering if, for clarity, my hometown's case >> could/should be mapped "as if" there is continuous physical >> separation, like almost everywhere else. >> >> Notes: >> >> In my comparison table, Mexico City's and Jakarta's BRT systems' stops >> are highlighted because they probably qualify as "bus stations" [2]. >> >> Buenos Aires' system is quite similar to Porto Alegre's. They use a >> variety of physical structures between bus lanes and regular lanes, >> but I'm not sure if the smallest ones are considered "physical >> separators" in Argentina. In case they are not, it would turn out as >> the same "weird" situation as in my hometown in some places. The >> Brazilian separators are quite different, but their status as >> "physical separators" is well agreed upon. [3] >> >> An opinion [4] made me wonder if highway=service is indeed adequate >> for these bus tracks. They really don't provide local access to >> "sites" (parking lots, private properties, bus stations, etc.). >> Instead, they allow people to move across vast distances around the >> city, just like regular roads. Maybe they should be >> highway=unclassified as in Brisbane. >> >> I know that Cleveland has a BRT system based solely on bus lanes, but >> with no separation from main traffic next to platforms. >> >> To help anyone interested, below are coordinates of areas that I >> consider "representative examples" of each of those BRT systems. They >> are good starting points for exploration. >> >> -27.4785878 153.0205546 Australia/Brisbane/South East Busway >> 45.4064414 -75.6642915 Canada/Ottawa/Transitway >> -34.5922814 -58.4407038 Argentina/Buenos Aires/Metrobus >> 34.1812658 -118.5534848 USA/Los Angeles/Orange Line >> -23.6915090 -46.5570539 Brazil/São Paulo/Corredor ABD >> -25.4359510 -49.3072766 Brazil/Curitiba/Linha Verde >> 49.4409999 1.0825457 France/Rouen/TEOR >> 47.2060680 -1.5388248 France/Nantes/Busway (line 4) >> 52.2340794 0.1350110 UK/Cambridge/The Busway >> -23.0003967 -43.3829705 Brazil/Rio de Janeiro/TransOeste >> -23.5620123 -46.6124021 Brazil/São Paulo/Expresso Tiradentes >> -6.1878222 106.8229964 Indonesia/Jakarta/TransJakarta Corridor 1 >> 19.4036069 -99.1692696 Mexico/Mexico City/Metrobus lines 1-3 >> >> [1] >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Editing_Standards_and_Conventions#Divided_highways >> [2] >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Public_Transport#Station >> [3] >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-br/2013-December/004837.html >> [4] >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2010-November/005799.html >> >> -- >> Fernando Trebien >> +55 (51) 9962-5409 >> >> "Nullius in verba." >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Tagging mailing list >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > -- Fernando Trebien +55 (51) 9962-5409 "Nullius in verba." _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
