From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

old content



  • This seems like an obvious tag. I'd say go ahead and add it to Map features directly. Robx 09:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I second that. btw. there are lots of rail turntables still in use ;) --Cbm 09:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree it is an obvious tag but am uncomfortable with adding it to directly Map features as it sets a bad precedent - there will be tag values that seem obvious to one person and not another. What is a two week wait when we can use the tag now anyway? One compromise would be to have an informal/fast track section on the railway page, I would be happy with that. MikeCollinson 11:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
i don't think we gain anything by adding it straight to map features: these discussions usually turn up plenty of useful points, unforseen by the proposer, and it only adds a few weeks on to the timeMyfanwy 01:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what the official names for them are, but there are also none round Turntable thingys that move trains sidewise and sometimes also turn them, would those things be included in here? --Ckruetze 22:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
i'm not sure, could you find some more information? links, photos, wikipedia maybe? i don't recall seeing them, i will ask a few people i know who work in the rail industry Myfanwy 04:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I found the name, they are called transger table according to wikipedia. See Wikipedia and Wikipedia Germany (better picture) and even more pictures at google images --Ckruetze 14:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
hmm, i think that's subtly different - enough to warrant a separate tag. any objections? Myfanwy 19:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
fine with me --Ckruetze 21:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


is now open, until 2008-01-31

  • i approve this proposal Myfanwy 19:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal --Cartinus 20:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal --EdoM (lets talk about it) 20:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal --Franc 21:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal --Dalkvist 00:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal--Walley 00:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal--Ulfl 02:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal --Geoff 14:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal --Deelkar (talk) 20:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal --Milliams 20:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal -- MikeCollinson 14:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal --Ckruetze 21:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

voting has closed, this proposal has been approved

Why is ref a useful combination?

ref=* is for highways, so why is it listed in the infobox? --NE2 14:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I cannot find any reference where "ref" is claimed to only refer to highways. ref is for any entity that has some sort of reference number or reference key e.g. roads, train routes, power lines, to name a few. --Deelkar (talk) 08:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, the Key:ref page only talks about highways, though I can see how it could be applied to stuff like power lines and canals (here canals have names like "Canal C-29"). Can you give an example of a turntable with a ref and what it would mean? --NE2 15:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
While I'm pretty certain that turntables (at least in Germany) do have refs, I'm not aware of turntables in OSM acutally tagged with a ref. Nevertheless it's a useful tag combination, for when you do find out which reference number/string/whatever is used (if any). --Deelkar (talk) 16:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm still not clear on what assigning a ref to a turntable would mean. Are turntables individually numbered? --NE2 07:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

tracks on the turntable

I would propose to add something like the following to the description: "Please do not add a line of track inside the turntable as the position of that track is not fixed. A renderer may chose to add such a line, but removing in the renderer is not possible." The same would apply to traversers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dakon (talkcontribs) 21:36, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I've noticed the same thing, and on the face of it I find it wrong for the same reason as you. However, I've seen it done by people who seem to know more about railways than me. I might be overestimating my fellow mappers, but what if there is a reason beyond "it looks like that on the aerial photo"? Could there e.g. be a "default" position of certain turntables, which they are put in if not needed to point elsewhere, like movable bridges? (I tried sending a message, but didn't get a reply.) //Essin (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
I partially agree with Dakon. I would add that the track might be mapped if there is a default position but that track should have have a special tag. --Nakaner (talk) 21:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Here's an example I saw IRL recently where it would make sense to map one direction as the default position. There might be another type where the turntable has been welded stuck, but I still think most cases are incorrectly mapped. I agree with Nakaner that turntables with an actual default position should be tagged explicitly somehow, maybe in a similar way to movable bridges? (The example is IMHO overtagged with both a node and a way for each turntable, but that's a bit beside the point of this discussion.) //Essin (talk) 20:32, 23 January 2018 (UTC)