User talk:Stevea

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

USBR 25 in Southwest Ohio

The unfinished Relation 122056 (XML, iD, JOSM, Potlatch2, history, analyze, manage, gpx) represents the Underground Railroad Route in Ohio, but OKI's proposal has USBR 25 going from downtown Cincinnati to Newtown via the UGRR's Cincinnati Spur Relation 1759158 (XML, iD, JOSM, Potlatch2, history, analyze, manage, gpx), and OKI has a nontrivial say in the matter. Unless there's been a more recent push in favor of the Ripley/Williamsburg route, I suggest maintaining a separate relation for USBR 25 rather than overloading the UGRR relation. (Besides, the detour to Ripley is much less relevant to a general-purpose route than for a thematic route like UGRR.) – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 09:42, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


OK, the new relation for the proto-USBR 25 is now Relation 3087492 (XML, iD, JOSM, Potlatch2, history, analyze, manage, gpx). This is the relation which should be used to "build and extend" USBR 25 in Ohio. Whether this does or does not get incorporated into UGRR as an ncn ("quasi-national route") via super-relation is a rather plastic concept. Let such a conversation begin. --Stevea

OK to tag both railway=light_rail AND usage=branch?

In Sonoma and Marin counties in California, a rail line (North Coast Railroad Authority) with freight usage is now tagged railway=rail and usage=branch. Imminently, a portion of this will additionally include passenger service (SMART) as railway=light_rail. On affected rail segments, do I simply change railway=rail to railway=light_rail, leaving the usage=branch tag to indicate the sort of traffic which remains for freight? (These are separated temporally; freight runs at night, passenger/commuter SMART will run in the daytime). Please see the relevant section of California/Railroads for all the gory complexities, but this is the essence of the question I'll have once passenger service starts on SMART very soon. --stevea (talk) 23:52, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

The answer is simple: leave the rail infrastructure tagged as is, since SMART is route=train, not route=light_rail. Stevea (talk) 19:37, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

route=railway Relations on VTA Light Rail System

Hi,

I saw you added several relations with route=railway on the VTA light rail system. The ones you added don't match any of the official VTA light rail routes (which are Alum Rock-Santa Teresa, Mountain View-Winchester, and the short Ohlone-Chynoweth line), and I'm not aware of any trains running besides the light rail cars. Is it fine if I remove these relations?

The changeset in question is this one. Saiarcot895 (talk) 19:03, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

No, it is not fine if you remove these relations. I'm not sure I added them, they are part of "underlying infrastructure" useful/convenient and important (but not strictly required) to enter a route=train relation. Please read our WikiProject_United_States_railways on how we use TWO relations (not three as OpenRailwayMap/Tagging suggests, that is a more German/European way of doing it) to describe both train routes (like VTA) and railway routes as the underlying infrastructure (light rail tracks, in VTA's case). The "high level" route=train relations that you see are the VTA routes, oriented towards passengers wanting to board a train in a particular direction on a set of tracks. The "middle/lower level" route=railway relations that you see are the underlying infrastructure, the "set of tracks." They are important relations, distinct from light rail routes, and must not be deleted. In fact, since 2014, I have been improving the TIGER-imported rail infrastructure in the USA by creating the WikiProject noted above, as well as several of the statewide projects noted in that wiki (especially California/Railroads, where I live). I spoke on this topic last summer (2016) in Seattle at SOTM-US (click on the User page link above and find the link to watch the 5-minute Lightning Talk). Please read up on OSM's comprehensive and relatively current documentation in the form of our wikis and understand our data structures before you start deleting well constructed relations, deliberately built, improved with consensus and documented in our wikis. In fact, if you have five or six minutes, watch the Lightning Talk I gave (pause through the rapid-fire slides during the last 30 seconds), as it is a good overview of this topic, if I say so myself. I appreciate that you asked me, but I must refer you (as I do here and now) to our documentation to explain these relations. I am happy to answer any additional questions you may have. Stevea (talk) 19:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't know about this scheme. Thank you for letting me know. This would also appear to explain the name on the tracks themselves. Saiarcot895 (talk) 00:29, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
You are welcome. Good communication between volunteers (including reading documentation) makes for a good project! Stevea (talk) 01:50, 2 July 2017 (UTC)