OpenStreetMap

Warin61's Diary

Recent diary entries

Public Transport V2 - many routes are invalid...

Posted by Warin61 on 7 October 2018 in English. Last updated on 14 October 2018.

Looking around using OSMinspector I find many routes are invalid. Green ones are good, the black/grey ones are bad. You can zoom out (but need to zoom back to get the result) and pan around to your bit of the world.

Why are they invalid? And how to ‘fix’ them? In my part of the world they look to be simply taken from V1 to V2 with no processing. And many of them are not ordered sequentially. It is simplest to do the minimum required to obtain a valid V2 route, but what is the minimum? Well .. from my understanding and experimentation the following looks to be required.

A simple Bus Route in OSM Public Transport V2.

The minimum a route relation with;

In the route relation the tags;

  • type=route
  • route=bus
  • public_transport:version=2

Then as members with the role ‘platform’;

Bus stops at the top in sequential order from the start to the finish. You don’t absolutely require all the stops but need the start and finish as a minimum, hopefully you’ll have a few more. These need each to be tagged as a node with the minimum of

  • highway=bus_stop
  • public_transport=platform
  • bus=yes

Ways next;

to show the roads taken, again these must be in sequential order from start to finish. There must be no gaps. No need for roles here, forwards/backwards are not used in V2. The ‘role’ in the relation is left blank.

Desirable;

These are not essential, add them if you want.

The route relation can have tags for

  • from=*
  • to=*
  • name=*
  • via=*
  • roundtrip=yes/no
  • operator=*
  • ref=*

As members all the relevant bus stops, or at least most of them. The stops too may have name=, ref= .. too much time required to gather these for me.

Checking:

Use OSMinspector to check your route works to some degree.

Some Australian samples; relation 3550083 and relation 7258397.

If you really need more details then OSM bus routes .. I find it too long and tedious. The minimum works in the vast majority of cases, if you need more then you ‘ll have to read the long detailed text.

A simple Train Route in OSM Public Transport V2.

The minimum a route relation with;

In the route relation the tags;

  • type=route
  • route=train
  • public_transport:version=2

Then as members with the role ‘stop’;

Train stops at the top of the relation in sequential order from the start to the finish. You don’t absolutely require all the stops but need the start and finish as a minimum, hopefully you’ll have a few more. These need to be tagged as a node on the way with the minimum of

  • public_transport=stop_position
  • train=yes.

Some say these should be at the front of the train, similar to bus stops. Others say these should be in the middle of the train – the average of where passengers get on. I don’t care, neither does the software so it is your choice. I put mine at the front, as that is what was in the OSM wiki when I looked.

Ways next;

to show the tracks taken, again these must be in sequential order from start to finish. There must be no gaps. No need for a ‘role’ in the relation.

Desirable;

These are not essential, add them if you want.

The route relation can have tags for

  • from=*
  • to=*
  • via=*
  • name=*
  • operator=*
  • ref=*

As members, all the relevant train stops, or at least most of them.The stops too may have name=, ref=.

Checking;

Use OSMinspector to check your route works to some degree.

Some Australian samples relation 3780904 (Newcastle to Sydney) and India Pacific, Perth to Sydney

If you really need more details then OSM Train Routes .. I find it too long and tedious. The minimum works in the vast majority of cases, if you need more then you ‘ll have to read the long detailed text.

Notes;

The tag highway=bus_stop predates the public transport version 2 system, it is rendered in a nice way. The public transport version 2 system bus stop tags do not render but are required fore V2. Maybe v3 will make do with only the tag highway=bus_stop, that would make things easier for mappers.

Adding sport= tags to leisure=pitch.

Posted by Warin61 on 28 April 2016 in English.

I am presently targeting Australian ‘leisure=pitch’ that don’t have a ‘sport=’ tag and trying to identify the sport and add the tag. Why? Well I added the osmwiki page for ‘sport=netball’ having found these to be missing or incorrectly tagged while some 1,300 were in the data base. I then went around adding them, or correcting incorrect entries where found. In doing this I noticed that in these areas sports grounds were poorly represented or tagged. Using the web to look for netball courts resulted in a doubling of the number of netball courts in the OSM data base! So how to find these areas where sport is not represented as good as it could be? I chose to use taginfo and search for leisure=pitch and sport!= (tags with leisure-pitch and no sport) while this works .. there are a lot of them … meaning the work spreads over several days and I was repeatably looking at the same things! So i chose to add the tag ‘fixme=sport=?’ to the places where I could not identify what sport was played there. The search can now be ‘leisure=pitch and sport!=* and fixme!=*’ and that removes the places I have looked at.

I have now done NSW! I am targeting Melbourne, then country Vic. Then … S.A./Qld.

This has increase the quantity of sports … netball is now around 3,800! Increases for AFL, touch_football (I have yet to add a osmwiki page for this), cricket, basketball, softball (yep .. needs a osmwiki page too) and discus, hammer throws and long and triple jumps (again .. needs a osmwiki pages! ).

Using LPI information to add street names to Sydney NSW Australia

Posted by Warin61 on 13 December 2015 in English. Last updated on 11 January 2016.

{edited Jan 2016} There are a fair number of streets in Sydney missing their names.

‘Cleary’ has negotiated the use of ‘Land and Property Information’ from the NSW government for use in OSM. Yea!!

So I have started to use their base map to add the street names using JOSM. There is a fair amount of information on that map .. house numbers, parks, post offices, police stations, libraries… very usefull.

So .. if you want to help .. instructions; ## Adding LPI imagery to JOSM This is now available on the pull down list. You want AU (for Australia) then LPI NSW Base Map. Go to ‘Imagery’ on the top bar, select imagery preferences, then scroll down to and click on the ‘LPI NSW Base Map’ so it highlights and then click on hte ‘Activate button’. It should now appear in the lower window.

Finding areas with missing street names

Too easy !

http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=highways&lon=151.04&lat=-33.8&zoom=11 The above can run a few days behind.

OR

http://qa.poole.ch/?zoom=11&lat=-33.88297&lon=151.1286&layers=TFFFB0 Looks to be running up to 1 hour behind.

Using JOSM to find the streets with missing names

Download from OSM the area you want to edit. Then CNTRL F (‘Find’) and type in ‘type:way highway=* -name=*’ and press enter.. that will select all the ‘highways’ that are ways without names. Includes cycleways, paths etc. Select the NSW LPI Base Map imagery and zoom in on one of the selected (red) highways … select the individual highway and add the name .. and add the source .. I’m using ‘LPI Base Map Jan 2016’ as that identifies what I am using .. if any updates come along then it should be easy to see. Once that one is changes .. CNTRL F and enter to find the remaining ones … if you forget to select an individual highway you will name ALL the highways with missing names… CNTRL Z is your friend to undo the error.

If you want to exclude footpaths then ‘type:way highway=* -name=* -highway=footway’. Same system for cycleway etc…


Yes the attribution and permission of LPI copyright has been done. Thanks once again to ‘cleary’!


There is also an improved resolution satellite view from LPI too … I think it also has less parallax error too. It lacks the names, and other details on the LPI Base Map. Similar instructions to install it in JOSM.

tagging cricket nets

Posted by Warin61 on 29 September 2015 in English.

These are used to warm up and practice bowling and batting for cricket.

Previously they were tagged leisure=pitch and sport=cricket_net …

But someone has pointed out that this in not a sport…

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:sport%3Dcricket_nets

A documented suggestion is to use sport=cricket, barrier=fence .. but the argument is it is NOT A SPORT so you cannot use sport= anything! That suggestion is on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:sport

I’d think similar ‘restrictions’ will be imposed by the pedantic on other pitches that are only used for practice ..for example - half sized basketball courts - only used for practice .. not full sized due to space restrictions. So not a sport.. just practice.

There are similar concerns for sport=exercise, sport=fitness .. these too are not sports.. yet are found in the OSM data base.

So .. what tag to use?

leisure=exercise?

exercise=cricket_nets description: A fenced area where cricket batting and bowling can be practiced.

And then there can be other ‘exercise’

exercise=exercise_station example: small areas set aside in parks with features to provide specific exercises. Usually free.

exercise=fitness_center example:An establishment with machines to improve physical fitness. Usually for a fee.

And so on ..

Or ?

leisure=practice_pitch ?

sport=cricket, basketball etc … this would indicate it is a practice pitch .. and that the full sport is played elsewhere. This is more restrictive, not covering exercise stations etc.

Or?

leisure=* .. as per normal then add sport_practice= cricket_nets etc .. indicating that only practice for that sport is conducted here. sport= would indicate that bother the sport and practice for teh soprt would be possible.

Consistency

What are ‘we’ tagging’? And Why are ‘we’ tagging it?

My preference it to tag what is seen … not what is consumed, not what is done. An example: There looks to be some angst over the new tag ‘man_made=tap’ tag. And that looks to come from the supporters of the tag ‘amenity=drinking_water’ humm ..

That tag ‘amenity=drinking_water’ .. does not sit well with me. I agree it needs to be tagged, but is this the best way? It is not consistent with other tags .. such as;

amenity=pub .. should this then be amenity=beer_drinking or amenity=beer?

amenity=restaurant .. should this then be amenity=eating or amenity=food?

My thoughts are that ‘amenity-drinking_water’ should become a tap, a blubber, a fountain .. what is seen. Why is this better? Consistency with other tags. And then .. well for me I like to know if I can fill my water bottle from it without making a mess (tap and maybe a fountain). Or I like to know if I can drink from it without needing a cup/water bottle (bubbler).

—————– next time - logical grouping of things?

I’m a bit confused by the highest level tags… what is the thinking behind them? Probably this has grown without too much coordination, but it is leading to a mess.

Should there not be some order/thinking/philosophy to them?

For example

highway= .. is tagging a thing.

amenity= is tagging a function/service.

Would it not be best to adopt one order/thinking/philosophy/system and stick to it? I think the present tags have evolved from different points of view and would be best reorganized, but before that happens some guide lines need to be established as to the order/thinking/philosophy/system that should be used. That would help people proposing new tags .. that would fit in with the system, rather than confuse it further.

If highway= were to be tagged as a service then it would be transportation=motorway, primary_highway, railway, ferry etc.

If amenity=drinking_water were to be tagged as a thing then it could be tagged as water=blubber(,sea, river, pipe, tap, )

Thoughts? I’ve raised the issue on the tagging talk group too.

improper tags

Posted by Warin61 on 6 July 2014 in English.

A Comment from BlueTiger on 3 July 2014 at 14:14 in another entry; “ Most of the times when I travel I will leave the OSMTracker running and update new POIs. At times I have skipped uploading POIs as they don’t have proper tags in OSM. Unfortunately I have taken a bad choice here, I should have updated them anyway and requested for new tags.”

I’ve seen a few tags that were not “proper” in an OSM sense .. but they make sense if you know what is there. Unfortunately getting somethings in to be “proper” in OSM looks to me to be difficult due to the numbers and location game e.g. Radio Telescope. While other things that are not consistent get through - e.g. highway=footpath and highway=path. So I’m inclined to tag all things I consider important in either a navigational sense or a facility. Make a tag note= with some explanation if necessary. This way the data is there .. even if used at this time. I’d rather have the data recorded rather than thrown away. The “improper” tag can be changed latter if a more appropriate tag is available.

I’m presently targeting things that have inappropriate ‘layer’ entries in my area.e.g.

highway, layer -5 … no tunnel/covered etc …

park layer -2

I assume this way done for rendering issues. The areas look to be best served with multipolygons.

There do not appear to be tools to find these inappropriate layers, so I’m using a simple text editor to find them., then JOSM to do the editing.

I’m toying with automating the replacement of abbreviation of street names e.g. St to Street, Ave to Avenue etc. It is tedious to do that by hand and the automation process can limit the replacements to tagged ‘highway’s and to the end of the name tag so things like St Andrews won’t get changed to Street Andrews! It would be used on .osm files making the changes, a separate text file documenting the changes (so you can check), the abbreviations and their replacements would be in a text file so additions could be made by anyone (in any language). To upload the changes JOSM would be used.