Note that highway=bus_guideway is for "A busway that is side guided "rails like", not suitable for other traffic." - so it is not just bus lane.
See for an example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridgeshire_Guided_Busway#mediaviewer/File:Guided_bus_Oakington_to_Longstanton.jpg 2015-03-04 10:41 GMT+01:00 Richard Mann <richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com>: > Trams used to be just done as a simple tag on the road way, but they have > slowly been converted to having their own OSM ways (one for each track). I > haven't been paying attention; there might not be many of the original > method left. > > I'd probably draw it as four parallel ways, and regard the white line as > effective separation. I don't think the tags for busways are entirely > settled yet. Some in the UK are > highway=service+access=no+psv=yes+name=Busway, but the one in Cambridge > uses highway=bus guideway+psv:guided=only, which shows up in bright blue at > zoom 13 in the default rendering, but isn't recognised by many data users. > > {I'd probably suggest that the blue rendering should be based on something > other than the highway tag, but that's another matter}. > > Richard > > On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 11:33 PM, Fernando Trebien < > fernando.treb...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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 >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
