I would love it if we can map PT routes that way, some day. Jo
Op 16 mei 2017 1:05 p.m. schreef "Bjoern Hassler" <bjohas...@gmail.com>: > Hello all, > > In my attempts to sort out some of the London Underground, here's rail > question 3, which is: Is my understanding of route_master -> superroute -> > route correct? > > Example: The Central Line is organised like this: > > - A1 -> B > - A2 -> B > - B-> C > - C -> D1 > - C -> D2 > - C -> D3 > > i.e. 6 sections, plus the reverse directions (6+6=12). > > In the current single relation, this wasn't obvious to me at all, though > after looking at it for a while, the sequences were all there. I am > planning to split the relation as follows. > > *Routes: *Each of the 12 sections above becomes a route. > > *Superroutes: *The following become superroutes: > > - A1 -> B -> C -> D1 > - A1 -> B -> C -> D2 > - ... > > Each route / superroute is named appropriately, but they do not relate > directly to the time table (e.g. "West Ruislip to North Acton"). It would > be the superroutes where the name corresponds to the timetable (e.g. "West > Ruislip to Hainault via Newbury Park"). > > *Route_master:* All superroutes are collected together in a route master. > > There are also sidings and switches. Not sure what to do with them. Maybe > they becomes 'site' relations? In any case, they will be added to the route > master, either directly, or as 'site' relation. > > In my opinion, creating superroutes is the logical way to go, but I am > concerned about rendering. Taginfo: > > - route: 25,000,000 > - superroute: 7,000 > - route_master: 88,000 > > Do you agree? Disagree? Comments? > > Many thanks! > Bjoern > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
