March 9, 2018 at 17:08 #22617
Could you please include the station=”light_rail” and station=”subway” tags for stations that are mapped as ways rather than nodes? I can’t render such stations as light rail or subway stations. Example Island Gardens station on DLR in London: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/170169685 shows up as a standard railway station.
For nodes/pois, from the tag-mapping file:12345678[crayon-5c0feeecbc9dc151434388 inline="true" ]<osm-tag key='station' value='light_rail' zoom-appear='14'><zoom-override key='railway' value='station' /></osm-tag><osm-tag key='railway' value='station' zoom-appear='12' /><osm-tag key='station' value='subway' zoom-appear='14'><zoom-override key='railway' value='station' /></osm-tag><osm-tag key='railway' value='tram_stop' zoom-appear='14' />
If this could be done for ways as well, then my Voluntary theme will work properly (and also Tobias’s Elevate/Elements)!
Thanks!March 9, 2018 at 20:05 #22619
Those tags are meant for nodes only:
That makes a lot of sense, as those are used to mark the central spot of a station/stop. Using an exisiting way like a building leaves this more to chance, and increases the risk of having this twice (once as way, once as node).
So it seems to me more a problem of incorrect tagging.March 9, 2018 at 22:23 #22621
Thanks for pointing that out. I’d been struggling to understand why the light rail station wasn’t displaying correctly and thought I’d cracked it. But the issue was the mapping, as you correctly point out.
1 user thanked author for this post.March 10, 2018 at 13:19 #22624
But the issue was the mapping, as you correctly point out.
Public transport is unfortunately pretty problematic. There are already two existing schemes, and both are not perfect, so there are already people thinking about a third one. For our uses the original one is sufficient, but as it’s in competition with the others not as well looked after as it used to be, so things like the tagging errors above could get more common.
I even had the issue once that an advocate of the second scheme deleted all highway=bus_stops in Munich (where I live), as he thought those aren’t needed anymore because the new scheme would be better – although it was never meant to replace the first one. At least I could persuade him to restore the deletions…
So it makes sense to watch this a bit, maybe someday it will be necessary for changes in the tag-mapping.March 10, 2018 at 20:42 #22628
I have just remapped stations on London’s DLR light rail so that there is a node for all of them but met an immediate objection that the wiki is not meant to be interpreted as a set of rules and the map rendering ought to reflect what mappers actually do. Any further thoughts?
March 12, 2018 at 10:48 #22639
- This reply was modified 9 months ago by JohnPercy.
Yes, I’ve heard that before; at least the vast majority of mappers and renderers sees the Wiki as consensus, else OSM would become an unusable data dump.
Of course one should reflect the actual data in rendering, which is easier with things on the ground. It gets complicated with abstract data. With public transport there is two things to map: infrastructure, like buildings, railways etc., and the abstract network. For the latter you can’t always use the first, that’s why especially for this a consensus on how to map it is necessary.
So there were proposals, which everyone could vote upon, and in the end something was approved. If you don’t like the result, you can still map differently (or discuss and propose a change). But telling someone like you who tries to keep the map according to the agreed standards that he is wrong and this would be inferior (in what way anyway)? Puh…
(I don’t think the current recommendations make sense all the time, and all schemes have their issues, but it doesn’t make a lot of sense to develop the old scheme any further as there are current discussions like this with the goal to have a new scheme with the advantages of both old schemes).
- This reply was modified 9 months ago by Tobias.
1 user thanked author for this post.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.