This mailing list has been migrated to Mailman 3. This archive will no longer be updated. Messages after 1 February 2020 are missing. Please use the new archive instead.
Diese Mailingliste wurde auf Mailman 3 umgestellt. Dieses Archiv wird nicht mehr länger aktualisiert. Nachrichten nach dem 1. Februar 2020 fehlen. Bitte benutze das neue Archiv.
On Sa, 2015-04-11 at 09:18 +0200, danmey at web.de wrote: > this second mail is to think about other ways to determine the > importance of a station without any specific tag. > I have to say that I have no idea about how difficult it is to render a > map and define render rules. So throw eggs if these ideas are not really > thought through... > > One way to define the importance of a station could be to have a look a > the route relations. > How many different route relations are conected with the stop_positions > of the station? Do these relations have a range of service tags (from > commuter to long_distance?) > Perhaps we could define a system to evaluate this. theoretically this could work, but it needs a lot of calculation. Especially for rendering this is would require preprocessing of the data. But there is also another problem: This would work just for passenger stations. A tagging solution would also be appliable on non-passenger stations like freight yards. There are very important freight yards like Maschen, Seelze, Gremberg, etc., but also freight yards in rural areas that are just used e.g. for irregular wood or military transports. A tagging solution would allow us to map their importance too. > A different way could be the number of platforms: more platforms means > higher importance. > Either with the platform*s*-Tag > (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:platforms). But it is not in > really wide use. I don't use it, either. > But there could be a way to determine the number of platforms through > the stop_area relation. Same problem for non-passenger stations as describe above. Also the number of platforms does not indicate the importance of the station. See this example: Bonn Hbf - 5 platform tracks - DB category 2 - 70 long distance trains per day (according to Wikipedia) - international traffic with EuroCity trains Neuss Hbf - 8 platform tracks - DB category 2 - just 4 long distance trains per week (3x ICE, 1x IC) - no international traffic (except from a regional express train that ends in Venlo, the border station between Germany and the Netherlands) Zwickau Hbf - 8 platform tracks - DB category 3 - no long distance trains - no international traffic > Of course, you can show me a lot of examples where a station with few > route relations / platforms has higher importance than another station > with more of these. > But as far as I understand the question, the problem is a render problem > in cases of collision. This happens with a small number of stations per > case. So, we don't need absolute importance of stations here, but a > relative ranking of these few stations. For collisions, relative importance of the stations would be enough. But when you want to render e.g. just international stations in low zoom levels, you need an absolute ranking. Regards Alex -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 490 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: <http://lists.openrailwaymap.org/archives/openrailwaymap/attachments/20150411/669f55c1/attachment.sig>