Talk:Tag:railway=tram
oneway=yes
"Where you do map one way for each track, it may be useful to add oneway=yes to indicate which direction trams using that track normally travel in" - when did this phrase discussed? oneway=yes is a tag for administrative rules. If tracks are embedded to road - it is one situation (usually we can say about direction), if tracks are separated from road, trams, commonly says, can move in all directions. But, perhaps, it depends on driving rules of concrete state. Dinamik 14:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
two ways using the same nodes
"in which case the usual way of tagging is to have two ways, each using the same nodes, one tagged railway=tram and the other tagged with a highway=* value" - when did community decide, that mapping two ways using the same nodes is good idea? I don't think, that it is easy-to-use method. If we have two ways, using the same nodes, there is problem with correcting lines (you begin pull line, but hold only one of them), with connecting other roads (you can accidently connect highway=service or highway=residential road not to highway=residential, but to railway=tram), with software (it shows, that we have mistake - two ways using the same nodes) ets. If there are two tracks, we can draw each track at its place near highway line (which is usually in the center of road) or add tag railway=tram to highway=residential line, if there is one track, lying in the center of road. Dinamik 08:19, 17 April 2012 (BST)
service=* for tram
The page currently says under "Tags to use in combination": "service=yard - if it is a sidings (sidings, tracks in depots)". I found this unsatisfactory, especially as there is also a well-used service=siding. I checked the current tagging in the database and posted to the mailing list suggesting the following:
- service=yard for tracks within and leading to tram storage and work areas ("yards", "garages", "depots" - where trams are parked overnight, maintained, light repairs)
- service=siding for tracks not used for normally scheduled passenger service (including diversion-only, emergency, non-revenue trackage, as well as turn tracks not used in scheduled service)
- service=crossover for crossover tracks (where dual-ended trams change direction - only use between two main tracks with no service tag - otherwise use service tag of the tracks that are connected)
Much more detail available at https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-January/042313.html. Comments very much welcome, through mailing list or through here. I'll cross-post the comments onto mailing list if someone here is not familiar or comfortable with it. --Jarek Piórkowski (talk) 16:07, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
- Looking at Key:service#Railways, there is a quite extensive tagging scheme currently in use. I do not really now if this is used for tramways as well, but it might be worth checking out before suggesting something anew. --Tigerfell
(Let's talk) 11:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for the response. I know of Key:service, I also posted this notice on its talk page. The tram service tagging would use the same values (as they are also currently widely used - see overview in the mailing list post), with different semantic meanings, but ultimately similar meanings to data consumers. So, a "railway yard" is a quite different thing from "tram yard/garage", but the effect on importance is similar ("here is some supporting infrastructure"). Similarly a "railway siding" is technically different from tram non-revenue trackage, but there is little concept of non-revenue trackage on mainline railways that I'm familiar with (other than usage=branch maybe? but that feels different). Mostly I wanted to suggest *something* tram-specific, so that we can aim to have consistency: currently service=spur, service=siding and to an extent service=yard are used interchangeably on tram tracks, as in the absence of a fitting spec people just tag for the renderer. --Jarek Piórkowski (talk) 13:10, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- Update: I have written a draft of what I am suggest to add to Key:service and put it at User:Jarek Piórkowski/Key:service. Comments here or edits to the userspace page are welcome. Thanks, Jarek Piórkowski (talk) 03:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- Two more thoughts: You might want to set up a proposal. This is described at Proposal process and may be tedious, but in the end there is a community consensus and we have a fully documented proposal page (see Proposed features/bus bay for instance). Secondly, an email to talk-transit mailing list might be a good move. --Tigerfell (Let's talk) 16:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- Two more thoughts: You might want to set up a proposal. This is described at Proposal process and may be tedious, but in the end there is a community consensus and we have a fully documented proposal page (see Proposed features/bus bay for instance). Secondly, an email to talk-transit mailing list might be a good move. --Tigerfell
- Thanks, I sent a notification to talk-transit at https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-transit/2019-February/002031.html (though it does seem rather less active than tagging mailing list). Do you think the formal proposal process is required here? I was leaning towards just adding the guideline to the page as this seems uncontroversial and probably not very interesting to many people. I am prepared to be surprised at what people have opinions on, but haven't gotten many across tagging list and the wiki talk pages so far. --Jarek Piórkowski (talk) 16:37, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- Well, the tagging mailing list is coming close to a general purpose list and people like me feel overwhelmed by all these messages. Some years ago, there must have been quite some discussion about mapping transit networks. My (limited) experience tells me that you often shout into empty rooms and later someone steps up and says they have never heard of that. Seems to be a fairly small change (just an extension in the meaning of existing tags, right?). The proposal process is never required, it is just suggested. On the other hand, you can really get stuck in it with endless discussions or waste your time if no one minds your suggestions anyway. If there is no discussion coming up after this post, I would say it is the second case and I would not recommend going through the proposal process (changed my opinion from the previous post after reading the mailing list archive). --Tigerfell (Let's talk) 17:00, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- Well, the tagging mailing list is coming close to a general purpose list and people like me feel overwhelmed by all these messages. Some years ago, there must have been quite some discussion about mapping transit networks. My (limited) experience tells me that you often shout into empty rooms and later someone steps up and says they have never heard of that. Seems to be a fairly small change (just an extension in the meaning of existing tags, right?). The proposal process is never required, it is just suggested. On the other hand, you can really get stuck in it with endless discussions or waste your time if no one minds your suggestions anyway. If there is no discussion coming up after this post, I would say it is the second case and I would not recommend going through the proposal process (changed my opinion from the previous post after reading the mailing list archive). --Tigerfell
- I've decided to keep it simple and made the change (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:service&diff=prev&oldid=1820049). I've notified both mailing lists, people who strongly disagree with the change are invited to revert it, if no one minds it enough to revert, it'll stay. Thanks Tigerfell for your feedback earlier this year. --Jarek Piórkowski (talk) 20:44, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- You are welcome. --Tigerfell (Let's talk) 21:10, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- You are welcome. --Tigerfell