Talk:OpenRailwayMap/Tagging

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Need to add a tag that is appropriate for a help point -- an intercom facility (that I've never seen anybody actually use) that exists on many London stations, especially if the station is open when unattended.

Perhaps information=help_point --Harg (talk) 22:00, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Can you give us any example picture of that? I currently do not understand exactly what you mean. Do you mean a kind of emergency phone? Or a remote ticket shop (via video chat) like http://www.merkur.de/bilder/2016/04/13/6306453/1983741020-kundin-videowand-4lLCVom5NG.jpg? --rurseekatze (talk) 22:16, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Here is an example [1] They are for general enquiries and to request assistance rather than specifically for emergency use. They definitely don't sell anything.
As this concerns not just railways, but all forms of public transport, I suggest you to ask for that on the wiki discussion pages of public transport topics or any public transport mailing list. Also OpenRailwayMap focusses on infrastructure for railway operation, less on the passengers view. --rurseekatze (talk) 22:48, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Also need a tag that is appropriate for oyster (prepaid) and contactless (pay as you go) card readers which can either be part of a walk-through ticket gate or a free standing reader on or near platform entrances. Hint: Those not familiar with London's ticketing might want to look at [2]

I suggest barrier=ticket_gate for the walk-through ticket reader but I'm less keen to suggest amenity=card_reader. They don't really provide either comfort, convenience or pleasure (dictionary definition of amenity). Facility=card_reader would make more sense, but we don't currently have a facility tag. --Harg (talk) 22:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

As this concerns not just railways, but all forms of public transport, I suggest you to ask for that on the wiki discussion pages of public transport topics or any public transport mailing list. Also OpenRailwayMap focusses on infrastructure for railway operation, less on the passengers view. --rurseekatze (talk) 22:48, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I would like to suggest one or two additional tags for track: "converted to rail trail" and maybe "proposed for rail trail". While I realize that the focus of this project is rail use, rights of way converted to trails are preserved in a way that simple abandonment or built-over does not adequately cover. At least in principle they can be converted back to rail use should sufficient need arise. In addition there are often rail artifacts preserved along trails, such as bridges, tunnels, sections of rail, signs, etc., that may be of historic interest and can be mapped with existing tags.--Agr (talk) 11:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Agr, I have struggled with how to tag "railtrail" here in the USA (specifically in California, though I do map rail in other states, too). See, for example, our California/Railroads wiki on this topic, which states (in part):
"A railtrail uses a former railroad right-of-way (ROW) for equestrian, bicycle or hiking paths, preserving the ROW for possible future re-use as a railway while providing a useful service in the meantime. These are often tagged highway=cycleway or highway=footway depending on whether they prefer or allow bicycle or pedestrian traffic. It is OK to tag both railway=abandoned and highway=cycleway if it is the case that an abandoned railway became a railtrail (for bicycle use, for example). Where a (multi-use) pathway is designated for pedestrians but also allows bicycles, tag highway=footway and bicycle=yes."
While this has been working (sort of), I think OSM's plastic tagging can offer more precise semantics if we coin new values railway=rail_trail and railway=proposed_rail_trail as you define them above. I believe that the first of these implies abandonment (the second implies impending abandonment), yet both also convey the necessary additional semantics you mention, like "could (in principle) be converted back to rail use should sufficient need arise." So while I'm not actually creating a voting proposal, I'm "virtually" doing so here in this Talk page, and certainly agreeing with you, by going so far as to suggest these exact Key:Value pairs. Stevea (talk) 14:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)