OpenStreetMap

Hallo ToniE,
Danke für Deine Änderungen am Sylt-Shuttle.

Eine Frage zum Tagging: für eine Zugverladung wurde bisher route=shuttle_train in OSM berücksichtigt. Beispiel Eurotunnel: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/180387103
Bis zum letzten Daten-Update hat auch die Sylt-Verbindung dieses Tag gehabt, durch deine Änderung gibt es nun route=train und shuttle=yes.

Wenn wir es richtig verstehen, ging es bei der Änderung eher darum, doppelte Verbindungen zusammenzufassen (route=train und route=shuttle_train mit denselben Geometrien), oder?
Durch die Änderung besteht nämlich nun leider das Problem, dass das Routing nach Sylt bei uns nicht mehr funktioniert (vermutlich auch mit Standard-Valhalla und mit OsmAnd).

Wir haben im OSM-Wiki leider keine Festlegung gefunden, wie man eine Zugverladung definiert - da sind weder route=shuttle_train noch shuttle=yes dokumentiert. Nur das Proposal für route=shuttle_train:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/shuttle_train

Bisher scheint die Sylt-Verbindung der einzige Fall weltweit zu sein, der die Kombi route=train und shuttle=yes hat.
Was meinst Du, können wir wieder mit route=shuttle_train taggen?

Viele Grüße und Danke

Servus,

das Proposal ist 10 Jahre alt, gilt als "abandoned (inactiv)", wurde nie verabschiedet -> also 'nein': nicht wieder als route=shuttle_train mappen.

Mit hatten sich die Nackenhaare aufgestellt (tun sie auch noch, wenn ich mir https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/180387103 anschaue).
Das widerspricht OSM-good-mapping-practice:

- etwas erfinden, um ausschließlich Routing-Engines zu befriedigen

- etwas doppelt mappen (Gleise) um nicht in Konflikt zu geraten mit den bereits gemappten railway=track wegen des route=shuttle_train.

- einen zusätzlichen einzelnen Way (als Gleis) zu mappen, wo die Gleise bereit als zweigleisige Infrastruktur existieren/gemapped sind.

Ein Zug ist ein Zug, wenn er zusätzlich auch Autos befördert bleibt er immer noch ein Zug - vom Wesen her.

service=car_shuttle, hgv=yes, good=yes, motor_car=yes, ... an einer Route-Relation wäre die Lösung gewesen. Diese Route-Relation(en) (eine pro Richtung) wären normale type=route, route=train Relationen mit den notwendigen Zusatzinformationen.

Route-Relationen sind ein probates Mittel im gesamten OSM-ÖPNV-Bereich. Warum hier davon abweichen?

Ich schlage vor, dieses Thema in der Community https://community.openstreetmap.org zu diskutieren (auf english, da es auch den Eutotunnel betrifft).
"chris66" der Author des Proposals ist dort auch aktiv, bei der Erstellung der Beitrags bitte @chris66 im Text erwähnen.

Meine Meinung:

- weg mit dem Blödsinn

- ändern der Routing-Engines Richtung Relationen: type=route, route=train (oder =ferry oder ...), motor_car=yes, bus=yes, hgv=yes, service=car_shuttle ... Dann müssten die noch nicht einmal den Unterschied zw. train und ferry und ... machen.

Gängiges Mantra: "Wir mappen nicht für die Renderer!" Wir mappen aber auch nicht für Routing-Engines.

Viele Grüße
Toni

Don't know if it is a valid argument here or not, but the famous La Manche shuttle is mapped like route=shuttle_train.

So now routing engines should support both versions COUNT(shuttle_train) == 26, COUNT(shuttle=yes) == 6 ..

route=shuttle_train versus route=train + shuttle=yes (or whatever) is a minor concern here for me as long as these tags can only be found on route-relations.

I deleted OSM ways here that were tagged with route=shuttle_train with some other tags (but not railway=track) to represent the railway tracks.
The ways had been mapped between / in parallel to the railway=track ways which already existed in OSM.

This is against the mantra "one feature, one object".

I.e. what exists in reality only once, must not be mapped by two more OSM objects, period/basta!

This applies to the Eurotunnel-Shuttle as well.

In addition, there were also two route-relations. the older, propper one, with route=train (having the tracks as members) and the newer one route=shuttle_train (with the suspicious ways as members).

In addition: routes are virtual OSM objects and must not by mapped on odes and ways but using relations. This is well established for all other public transport elements. A train carrying cars and shuttle trains fit well into the schema.

What's the difference between a shuttle train and a train?
Do shuttle_trains have only two stops? No, I guess that's not always true?

BTW: the tracks on the Hindenburgdamm between Sylt and Niebüll are also used by other trains RB*, ICE*, ...
Please refrain from adding route=shuttle_train to those tracks - that would obviously be completely wrong. tracks are tracks and trains are trains, two completely different objects in OSM and reality. Don't mix them.

Back to your question: a route-relation with route=shuttle_train versus route=train + shuttle=yes:

Once routing engines learned to make use of route-relations, the code to differentiate between the two mapping flavours is tiny - so why not take the correct one?

A shuttle train is a train with special service: route=train + some additional tags.
This would also apply for route=ferry carrying cars, bicycles, trains, ... and (!) passengers which came by foot.

BTW: would you introduce an new tagging schema (shuttle_ferry) for ferries crossing rivers (having only two stops)? No!

I'm going to start a discussion in the community and will provide the link here later.

Ok, no problem, your arguments are valid here.

Thanks, and here we are with the discussion in community

https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/route-shuttle-train-deprecation-of-13-11-year-old-never-activated-proposal/97351

Seems that my edit has been reverted ... for the time being hopefully.

From my perspective: be prepared that my edit will be seen as valid deletion and prepare your routing engines to work with relations and follow the discussion in the community.

I have already updated our routing engine. And I agree with you that route=train + shuttle=yes is the better scheme here. The same as route=ferry.

And of course, we as the OSM community should avoid dummy duplicating ways like in La Manche, where existing relation is more than enough. Probably should unify additional tags like shuttle=yes or service=shuttle/car_shuttle or whatever ...

Thanks.

@vng_me: our routing engine = Valhalla?

Organic Maps

Hm, seems like I realized why there was a dedicated route=shuttle_train way.

Because it has only start/end points connected with entrance/exit highway ways. Now railway=rail way has a lot of common nodes with other highways and routing engines (without any specific processing) interpret these nodes as possible enter/exit, which is not correct.

> Hm, seems like I realized why there was a dedicated route=shuttle_train way.

Yeah, another reason - but still not valid reason.

I've discussed this topic with the maintainer of osm2po and I've come to the conclusion that valid transfer points from highway=* to railway=rail should be - and are - defined explicitly:

- for motor_vehicles, ...: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OpenRailwayMap/Tagging#Car_shuttle also tagged as public_transport=stop_position

- for bicycles and others : public_transport=stop_position on the rail, public_transport=platform next to it for the bicycles

So to have a positive (and not a never exhaustive negative) list of transfer points

Ok, but now what is the difference with this node (actual car entrance) https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4278583112

and this node (some intermediate stop) https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4592378548

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4592378548 represents the stop position of trains for public transport relations mapped according to the so called PTv2 (public transport version 2 = https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/Public_Transport&oldid=625726 )

The node is part of a stop_area and a route relation of the RE6, both with role 'stop'.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4278583112 is, from the PTv2 perspective the same, a stop position for trains

according to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OpenRailwayMap/Tagging#Car_shuttle it shouldn't be mapped as railway=halt but rather as railway=car_shuttle a transfer point

But many mappers are not familiar with the details of railway= mapping - me included.

I understand, my point was that now the routing engine can't distinguish car shuttle stop vs bicycle/pedestrian stop.

The major difference is

- railway=car_shuttle for transfer point

- railway=stop or railway=halt for all normal traffic