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.

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)