Railway=station as an area?

[gymate]

@alan_gr

Would it be easier to have two diagrams, either:

• mapped mainly as nodes v full area mapping, or
• station with public transport v non public.

@stevea

Also, maybe “mapped mainly as nodes” vs. not.

@dieterdreist

The idea to have 2 diagrams, a “mapped-as-node” and “mapped-as-polygon” version, also sounds interesting to me

I would rather prefer this method due to better maintainability:

@stevea

one without relations and areas (which could suffice for our “simple railway station” diagram) and the one above, with relations (as more comprehensive, but no longer really “simple”).

But we’ll see how it works out.

[gymate]

Thank you very much for all the suggestions! I’ve made the following adjustments to the illustration:

@stevea

for both relations, swap the order of type and its first-line companion so that type=site and type-=public_transport come first.

@stevea

Green = landuse

@alan_gr

perhaps the box for public_transport=station mapped as an area should be red?

@alan_gr

the box where public_transport=station and railway=station are together (for mapping as nodes) would somehow show both red and pink.

@dieterdreist

I think it would be even more understandable if the same tagging (as node and area) would have the boxes directly adjacent

And @stevea, thank you very much for the illustration! This made it much easier for me to understand your ideas.

[gymate]

So I’d like to propose the following tagging scheme illustration updated with your suggestions:

I’ve also made a simplified one hiding all objects in the illustration that depict optional or complex tagging methods:

I didn’t add the title and footnotes in this illustration because I think it’s the Wiki page’s job to explain the tagging scheme, the illustration only extends that. (I also intend to edit the Wiki page accordingly.) And I think that colors don’t really need an explanation on the illustration as they’re just visual guides for grouping tag categories, but they could be featured on the Wiki file page.

Please let me know your thoughts on these!

[stevea]

Lookin’ really nice. Offering a thumbs up to both of these diagrams, though if others want more or different, I remain listening.

Edit: If I may offer an “editorial preference” of mine, let’s call it, when presenting these graphics in our wiki: the simple one first, then some text, then the “generalized” (more comprehensive) graphic secondly.

It’s pretty neat how the “a picture says a thousand words” adage conveys to our minds in this case. Again, the colors as semantics are a little fuzzy between red and pink, and I hope it is made clear somewhere that blue is for route=train relation elements, but yes, the colors now better carry a nice load visually.

First graphic becomes a newer “simple railway station as a node.” Many, even novice mappers, with a once-through tutorial perhaps, can walk through this. The second graphic might be titled: “more generalized, with multiple themes” leaving this the wet paint that it is right now. I think only minor touch-ups ahead, but I could be wrong. I don’t think we need any wholesale reinvention of this wheel. I’d say we install these graphics in our wiki as their paint dries.

I offer claps on the back to all and sundry who accept claps on the back at a job well done.

[stevea]

One more bubble (roundrect, with black text and blue text) I think might properly finish this: could we add

relation: type=route and route=train

with relation: in bold black text and the rest in blue?

Right above the red public_transport=platform (etc) roundrect?

Could fit on a longish single line (“extending east of the red signal”), maybe better two lines of text (with a touch more vertical dimension) to remain consistent with the other two relations with similar notations (in bold). I lean towards a two-liner. It could also cleverly be tucked in at the bottom or far-left corner and maybe bottom. Do-able, but what do others think? This relation (route=train, and the way stops are tagged, and train=yes…) means we should say this explicitly somewhere, rather than implying it. And this format keeps it regular, and black and blue, making sense to me, at least, “completing the picture.” (Like 99 to 100%). “All the syntactic aspects are shown.”

[dieterdreist]

you should remove railway=facility, it doesn’t even have a wikipage, wasn’t proposed and has no clear meaning, it covers the same area a railway=station, and the same key make them incompatible.

[Kovoschiz]

railway=facility is used on the type=site for rail operation devices. We have discussed the existing railway=site used on points, and site=railway . What do you suggest instead? I don’t like it the most either. OpenRailwayMap/Tagging - OpenStreetMap Wiki

[gymate]

@stevea

If I may offer an “editorial preference” of mine, let’s call it, when presenting these graphics in our wiki: the simple one first, then some text, then the “generalized” (more comprehensive) graphic secondly.

Yeah I was thinking the same!

@stevea

First graphic becomes a newer “simple railway station as a node.” Many, even novice mappers, with a once-through tutorial perhaps, can walk through this. The second graphic might be titled: “more generalized, with multiple themes”

Good idea!

[gymate]

@stevea

could we add

relation: type=route and route=train

@stevea

This relation (route=train, and the way stops are tagged, and train=yes…) means we should say this explicitly somewhere, rather than implying it.

Yeah I see your point but if we would add a description box for type=route & route=train…

1. we should not point to one random (any of the 3) railway=stop dot but two of those dots (on tracks 2 & 3) because the one on track 1—which is a side track—would usually not belong to a relation of this kind,
2. tracks 2 & 3 should also be marked with a blue color because those should also be added as members to this relation,
3. we should also mention these tracks in the text box as members added to the relation,

etc.

It’s doable but I think it would clutter the (already) complex illustration too much. And I believe the type=route & route=train relation’s main purpose isn’t about infrastructure but rather services provided on them. So I think that this addition wouldn’t really be a good idea.

[gymate]

@dieterdreist

wasn’t proposed

railway=station, railway=stop, railway=halt etc. were not proposed yet either. (It would be a good idea to propose them though!) But I think this doesn’t mean we can’t use them.

@dieterdreist

has no clear meaning

I believe it does have a clear meaning: a relation which “groups” infrastructure elements of a railway operating site together.

@dieterdreist

it covers the same area a railway=station, and the same key make them incompatible.

It does not cover the same area as railway=station as it is only an abstract relation which has a railway=station node or area among one of its many members.

[dieterdreist]

| gymate
January 10 |

• | - |

dieterdreist:

wasn’t proposed

railway=station, railway=stop, railway=halt etc. were not proposed yet either. (It would be a good idea to propose them though!) But I think this doesn’t mean we can’t use them.

the difference is that railway=station was there “forever”, while railway=facility was introduced when publicly discussing and voting on proposals was already very established.

dieterdreist:

has no clear meaning

I believe it does have a clear meaning: a relation which “groups” infrastructure elements of a railway operating site together.

it has no clear meaning because it has no wiki page and isn’t defined somewhere in the wiki where it could be found: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?search=railway%3Dfacility&title=Special%3ASearch&go=Go

[gymate]

@dieterdreist

the difference is that railway=station was there “forever”, while railway=facility was introduced when publicly discussing and voting on proposals was already very established.

I totally get that, but I still think that this shouldn’t hold us back from using it. If you have an other suggestion, please share it – I’m open to anything!

@dieterdreist

it has no clear meaning because it has no wiki page and isn’t defined somewhere in the wiki where it could be found: Search results for "railway=facility" - OpenStreetMap Wiki

It does actually have a wiki page which redirects to OpenRailwayMap/Tagging where the tag is defined in detail. But you were right, the redirection was partially broken as it didn’t jump to the correct section of that page, so I’ve just fixed it.

About the search results: the second result to the query you linked is OpenRailwayMap/Tagging, where the tag is defined—although it doesn’t jump to the section in question. I agree that this might be enhanced later with creating separate wiki pages for all tags on OpenRailwayMap/Tagging.

[SekeRob]

Since me was cutting out railway corridors (landuse=railway) from many miles of farmland, scrub and wood, real fun since all was mapped in umpteen member MP relations, took the KISS route and just included the station area into the landuse=railway giving resultants like this…

The facility… 1 building at most of the halts \o/. For stations like Gare du Nord, better involve the mappers of those big stations which include bus, taxi, streetcar, metro (makes me think of Heathrow with their 5 apart terminal buildings). There the work is surely cut out.

(Done some indoor of a larger station like foot routes to the platforms, escalators, elevators never having felt the urge to create a binding relation. Certainly hoping when the framework has been hashed out to see a cleanup of ever repeating station names in the same zone… go fetch a coffee and start counting the number of times Centraal Station appears in this picture, at one zoom.

)

[dieterdreist]

@gymate

I totally get that, but I still think that this shouldn’t hold us back from using it. If you have an other suggestion, please share it – I’m open to anything!

I don’t take issue with the tag name, what I am missing is an established definition. I would suggest to either write a page where the tag is defined, or better make it a proposal so that it can be formally approved. The latter would make it less likely that someone comes out later and questions the tag.

@gymate

It does actually have a wiki page which redirects to OpenRailwayMap/Tagging where the tag is defined in detail. But you were right, the redirection was partially broken

Thank you for the pointer. So basically this is for places that meet the German railway law definition of “Betriebsstelle”?

[gymate]

@dieterdreist

I would suggest to either write a page where the tag is defined, or better make it a proposal so that it can be formally approved.

Good idea! I think it would be better to propose all the tags on the illustration at once in order to avoid (future) conflicts between them. But since I unfortunately don’t have time for that now, I’ve moved and updated the tag’s definition from the OpenRailwayMap/Tagging page to its separate wiki page. Improvements are welcome!

@dieterdreist

So basically this is for places that meet the German railway law definition of “Betriebsstelle”?

As far as I’m familiar with the EBO, yes.

[stevea]

On that wiki page, under References, I expected to see “diagram 2” (the fully themed one) we just all achieved. Seems like a “chef’s kiss” place to put that diagram (or link it from the wikiverse). I mean, we all stand by that, link it up. If you point to this topic (in the wiki), I’ll offer an A+. Nice work everybody!

[gymate]

@stevea

On that wiki page, under References, I expected to see “diagram 2” (the fully themed one) we just all achieved. Seems like a “chef’s kiss” place to put that diagram (or link it from the wikiverse).

I’ll embed the diagrams—once I’ve uploaded them—in all relevant wiki pages for sure!

@stevea

If you point to this topic (in the wiki), I’ll offer an A+.

Good idea, thanks—will do!

[gymate]

@gymate

I’ve also made a simplified one hiding all objects in the illustration that depict optional or complex tagging methods:

I’ve uploaded this illustration to the wiki.

@gymate

So I’d like to propose the following tagging scheme illustration updated with your suggestions:

I’ve realigned and unified the colors of the bottom text boxes and put all tags in them on separate lines:

I hope you like these tiny improvements! If yes (a thumbs up is enough), I’ll upload this version shortly and embed both illustrations in all relevant wiki pages.

[stevea]

Let’s call it a good first coat of fresh paint. A little wet, places where tidying of specificities might get tightened up, sure. Thumbs up.

[gymate]

Thanks a lot for the feedback!

@gymate

And I think that colors don’t really need an explanation on the illustration as they’re just visual guides for grouping tag categories, but they could be featured on the Wiki file page .

I’ve added info about the colors on the files’ wiki pages.

@gymate

I’ve realigned and unified the colors of the bottom text boxes and put all tags in them on separate lines:

I’ve uploaded this version to the wiki.

@gymate

and embed both illustrations in all relevant wiki pages.

@stevea

If you point to this topic (in the wiki), I’ll offer an A+.

I’ve embedded both illustrations in the following wiki pages, added links to this topic and edited them accordingly:
Railway stations
railway=station
railway=halt

I’ve also moved the Stations and stops section from OpenRailwayMap/Tagging to these tags’ pages to avoid confusion due to mismatched tagging schemes:
railway=station
railway=halt
railway=tram_stop