OpenStreetMap logo OpenStreetMap

Changeset When Comment
117176660 over 3 years ago

Railroads are not publicly accessible rights-of-way. All railroads would be access=private, because you cannot simply own a railed vehicle and plop it on the tracks wherever. The access tag isn't appropriate for railroads.

What is the purpose of assigning a tag to the railroad indicating that trains

117176660 over 3 years ago

While it's debatable whether this segment of rail should be mapped as under construction or not, I'm not sure railway=rail was the right choice here. Personally, I would map it as railway=light_rail (not railway=construction) if construction is complete and it's undergoing testing. To indicate that passenger service isn't running on this segment (yet), I would simply leave it out of any route=light_rail relations.

I've suggested the addition of a new lifecycle prefix for situations like this, but I'm not sure it's really necessary. I think it's sufficient to map it as completely built but leave it out of public transit relations.

117032111 over 3 years ago

Wouldn't the segment of US 190 between I-10 and LA 22 be motorway still? It's fully access-controlled, with 3 grade-separated interchanges, and even has a direct interchange with an Interstate.

97463903 over 3 years ago

Took care of it here: osm.org/changeset/117292540

I used JOSM to separate the nodes from the track segments and moved them over.

The new platform at Middletown looks very thin. Do you know if the tracks have been shifted over a few feet to accommodate the new platform?

116536212 over 3 years ago

osm.org/changeset/117251329

116536212 over 3 years ago

Hi,

I've reverted this changeset because the Texas Highway Designation Files list this as a Farm-to-Market Spur, not a State Highway Spur [1]. Signs for both of these networks look identical, which I'm sure is confusing.

[1] https://www.dot.state.tx.us/tpp/hwy/fm/fm0149.htm

117138907 over 3 years ago

My complaint here is about your behavior, not your tagging. Disputes and discussion are healthy; edit warring is not.

It seems like you have some strong opinions on this issue, and I welcome you to voice them in a constructive manner. Again, I would recommend joining the OpenStreetMap-US Slack and mentioning this issue in #local-texas, because Texas mappers are in that channel actively discussing how to tag roads like these going forward.

117138907 over 3 years ago

Hi Russell722,

This is the second time you've reverted my work without notifying me. Please write a comment on any changesets you revert to notify the people involved. Otherwise, what you're doing may be seen as an edit war.

While it is true that using the word "Business" in ref tags causes it to not show up on osm-carto (the map you're looking at), it doesn't mean you should retag it to make it render [1].

There is currently ongoing discussion about highway classification and ref values in the OpenStreetMap-US Slack [2]. I invite you to join the #local-texas channel and share your thoughts on tagging Texas highways.

[1] osm.wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer

[2] https://osmus-slack.herokuapp.com/

115859176 over 3 years ago

No worries, I'll fix it.

115859176 over 3 years ago

Hi there - how come you removed TX 17 from the ref value of I-10 east of Balmorhea? I-10 and SH 17 overlap between exit 209 and 212. Is SH 17 unsigned along this segment?

115137049 over 3 years ago

Hi they,

What was your rationale behind tagging the whole segment of TX 136 between Borger and Fritch as expressway=yes? While it does have a high speed limit, in my opinion only the divided segments should be considered expressways. The undivided parts seem like stroads to me.

-Clay

116718465 over 3 years ago

oops, meant west

116688535 over 3 years ago

oops, rolled another change into this one. also added expressway=yes to US 77 between Three Rivers and Edinburg

105792562 over 3 years ago

Hi Mr_Spritey,

It looks like you've traced some new segments of Interstate 69E. I checked the imagery you used here, and I could only see it under construction.

Can you confirm that you've traveled down this road and seen it yourself? Otherwise, can you link a news article about these new segments?

-Clay

116685300 over 3 years ago

Hi Russell722,

Again, please leave a message when you revert someone's edits, or at least a more descriptive changeset comment.

I changed this segment of US 59 Business to primary because it does not serve as a long-distance route. Through traffic generally follows US 59, which is already tagged as trunk. In good faith, I've reverted the business route back to primary. Let me know if you have any questions.

osm.org/changeset/116687100

-Clay

116684585 over 3 years ago

Hi Russell722,

It looks like you reverted my edits without notifying me. Typically it's polite to leave a message when you do this, or at least a more descriptive changeset comment than "Edited roads."

I changed this segment of US 259 Business to primary because it does not serve as a long-distance route. Through traffic generally follows US 259, which is already tagged as trunk. In good faith, I've reverted the business route back to primary. Let me know if you have any questions.

osm.org/changeset/116687054

-Clay

87866761 over 3 years ago

Top speed for the Sprinter is 50 mph, and top speed for SMART is 79 mph. Those are tagged as `maxspeed=*` on the underlying tracks. Does light rail have a speed restriction that I'm unaware of? Are there any public transit routing services that are affected by this change? Which data consumers are using this data?

Most of the criteria you listed (distance, speeds, track configuration, stations) are orthogonal to whether a railway is considered light rail. The rolling stock for SMART is much lighter than conventional trains and not FRA-compliant. Because of this, certain segments of track are restricted to DMUs, and FRA-compliant trains must wait until they're all off the tracks before they can make any movements. The rolling stock lacking FRA compliance points to "light rail" to me. They may only operate on their special track and can't continue onto the rest of the conventional rail network.

Again, SMART could reasonably go either way, and I'm happy to do the work to retag it to conventional rail. If you live in the North Bay, and SMART just intuitively "feels" like conventional rail rather than light rail, that's convincing enough.

110583442 over 3 years ago

Changeset reverted here: osm.org/changeset/116132921

This train station was not "added" in this changeset—it was deleted elsewhere and this building was retagged to become the train station.

113624904 over 3 years ago

Changeset reverted here: osm.org/changeset/116132921

Unfortunately this changeset introduced a few tagging issues. For example, the NJ Transit train station at Union was already properly mapped as a node, and shouldn't have been merged with the station building. The building is a part of the station (building=train_station), not the station itself (railway=station). Also, "Train Station" is unnecessary in the name of a train station.

This changeset also brought in an improperly mapped multipolygon for the railway platform. A platform does not cease to be a platform when it is covered by a roof, therefore a roof should not be a member of a surrounding platform multipolygon relation.

Let me know if you have any questions. I know it's probably frustrating, but I hope it doesn't discourage you from editing. Most of the work you've done in the area seems good and well-detailed.

-Clay

87866761 over 3 years ago

So SMART is an oddball. It's a temporally restricted passenger railroad, like the Oceanside-Escondido Sprinter and certain lines of the San Diego Trolley, where freight movements are only allowed when passenger service is shut down. The consensus is, when light rail is temporally restricted, the tracks that support freight rail should be `railway=rail` and the passenger-only tracks should be `railway=light_rail`.

Though that doesn't answer the question of whether SMART is light rail. Realistically, it could go either way. It's got the characteristics of most DMU hybrid light rail lines, but it's a bit longer and its service pattern is more commuter-oriented, with no trains for a couple of hours between commute periods. Tagging it as conventional rail would probably work just as well.

Perhaps this needs more discussion on the mailing list or Slack. This is an edge case and I'm not sure what's best here.