4 ms·

The Tokyo area is missing so many lines!!! .... or maybe there's just hard to see because for some reason they're in super non-contrasty colors. My guess is, w

by gernb 4y ago

The Tokyo area is missing so many lines!!! .... or maybe there's just hard to see because for some reason they're in super non-contrasty colors. My guess is, whoever made this, based it on the idea that trains and subways are different things. They aren't in Japan. For example the Mirai-Line (subway), The Tokyu Tokoyo-Line (train), Eiden-Fukutoshin-line (subway), Tobu Tojo Line (train) can all share the same cars and some "cars" run all 4 lines where other cars run just their own line. I'm not sure what the definition of "subway" vs "train" is. In Japan it's certainly not "runs underground vs runs above ground". Even in NYC all the trains run for a long ways underground to get to Central or Penn station. It's also certainly not "need a harder to get ticket than just use a transit pass" as pretty all the trains lines in Japan except for a few super express trains can be ridden just by starting with the cheapest ticket you got out of a generic ticket machine and paying the difference when you get off". So for example you can ride the San-Yo line 333 miles (537km) and it's just a normal hop on, hop off train. you don't have to go to some ticket booth/kiosk and reserve a seat like you would for say an ICE train in Europe or the bullet train in Japan

danhor 4y ago
All rail infrastructure should be mapped, even streetcar tracks. Tokyo is full of subway-like lines (in light-blue) so at first glance it doesn't seem like many are missing. This is based on OSM data, so the definition on the wiki should be used: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:railway%3Dsubway https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:railway%3Dsubway (which isn't very specific).
bobthepanda 4y ago
Usually, the distinction is equipment. “Train” usually refers to that equipment that is compatible with the larger national mainline network, which is regulated nationally so that signaling, size, and safety are consistent (e.g. two trains from different companies crashing into each other is not a disaster, they fit on each others’ tracks and stations, they can talk together on the same radio frequency and hook into the same cab signals, etc.) Metros tend to be isolated systems doing their own thing and are not easily compatible. In the most extreme case like London Underground, they are wildly different dimensions than mainline trains. Tokyo does have lines like these in its subway umbrella; the Ginza Line and Oedo Line cannot host through operations. It’s not common though, Japan is at the forefront of blending the two, which is often desirable for intraurban operations.
- iggldiggl 4y ago
  > In the most extreme case like London Underground, they are wildly different dimensions than mainline trains. Though on the other hand especially in the case of the London Underground the boundaries are actually quite blurry, too. First of all it's only the deep tubes that are running those noticeable smaller trains, and even then the Bakerloo line nevertheless actually has some through-running onto the mainline railway network, too (Queen's Park – Harrow & Wealdstone). Secondly, the subsurface lines have some more through-running (District Line to Wimbledon and Richmond and most noticeable the Metropolitan Line north of Harrow-on-the-Hill) and historically, the boundary between the Underground lines and the mainline network used to be even fuzzier, e.g. for a time some District Line trains used to run all the way to Southend and Shoeburyness, beyond today's Circle Line the so-called Middle and Outer Circle services partially ran on mainline railway infrastructure in West London, etc. etc. Even as late as 1988 there was a special railtour on the subsurface lines utilising standard Gatwick Express Mk2 railway carriages (albeit hauled by London Underground battery locomotives).
  - bobthepanda 4y ago
    That’s fair. Ultimately rail isn’t really a bunch of distinct categories but really a multiplane continuum of various features that people choose to implement or not implement based on local context, desirability and feasibility.
iggldiggl 4y ago
> My guess is, whoever made this, based it on the idea that trains and subways are different things. I think Openrailwaymap started out as a German project ("Bahnkarte") and it might still be somewhat German-dominated to this day (?)… – and in Germany there is indeed a clear legal split between mainline railways and subways, because the latter are built and operated according to the regulations that are also applicable for trams/streetcars, while the former have their own set of applicable laws and regulations. So that relatively hard split might have coloured the world view of the Openrailwaymap creators somewhat in that regard… (Though even in Germany there are some edge cases – the Hamburg and Berlin S-Bahn systems are legally railways and have some, albeit only limited interaction with the rest of the mainline network (respectively in the case of Hamburg some actual through-running again as of a few years ago), but in regards of operations and signalling they're (especially historically) in some ways more closely related to other rapid transit networks than to the rest of the mainline railway. I notice that in Openstreetmap those networks are currently tagged as "light rail", which with regards to the distinction from the regular mainline network might not be that inaccurate, but on the other hand is equally confusing, because "light rail" can mean loads of things: - historically in the UK minor branch railways built according to simplified rules and regulations – but still railways in spirit – were called light railways - these days it gets commonly used for anything between basically souped-up trams (sometimes not even all that souped-up) and full-scale rapid transit-type rail (which at other times is actually termed "heavy metro" if you want to distinguish it from "lesser" light railways) - due to differing crash strength regulations and the historic US approach of "buff strength over alles", some types of (albeit light-weight) European main-line multiple units are seemingly classified as tram-train/light rail operations in the US )
IIAOPSW 4y ago
Try adjusting the zoom. At first I had the same problem with New York, but actually it was just doing that thing online maps do to avoid clutter. Subways are absolutely in there.

by gernb 4y ago

danhor 4y ago

All rail infrastructure should be mapped, even streetcar tracks. Tokyo is full of subway-like lines (in light-blue) so at first glance it doesn't seem like many are missing. This is based on OSM data, so the definition on the wiki should be used: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:railway%3Dsubway https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:railway%3Dsubway (which isn't very specific).

bobthepanda 4y ago

Usually, the distinction is equipment. “Train” usually refers to that equipment that is compatible with the larger national mainline network, which is regulated nationally so that signaling, size, and safety are consistent (e.g. two trains from different companies crashing into each other is not a disaster, they fit on each others’ tracks and stations, they can talk together on the same radio frequency and hook into the same cab signals, etc.) Metros tend to be isolated systems doing their own thing and are not easily compatible. In the most extreme case like London Underground, they are wildly different dimensions than mainline trains. Tokyo does have lines like these in its subway umbrella; the Ginza Line and Oedo Line cannot host through operations. It’s not common though, Japan is at the forefront of blending the two, which is often desirable for intraurban operations.

iggldiggl 4y ago
> In the most extreme case like London Underground, they are wildly different dimensions than mainline trains. Though on the other hand especially in the case of the London Underground the boundaries are actually quite blurry, too. First of all it's only the deep tubes that are running those noticeable smaller trains, and even then the Bakerloo line nevertheless actually has some through-running onto the mainline railway network, too (Queen's Park – Harrow & Wealdstone). Secondly, the subsurface lines have some more through-running (District Line to Wimbledon and Richmond and most noticeable the Metropolitan Line north of Harrow-on-the-Hill) and historically, the boundary between the Underground lines and the mainline network used to be even fuzzier, e.g. for a time some District Line trains used to run all the way to Southend and Shoeburyness, beyond today's Circle Line the so-called Middle and Outer Circle services partially ran on mainline railway infrastructure in West London, etc. etc. Even as late as 1988 there was a special railtour on the subsurface lines utilising standard Gatwick Express Mk2 railway carriages (albeit hauled by London Underground battery locomotives).
- bobthepanda 4y ago
  That’s fair. Ultimately rail isn’t really a bunch of distinct categories but really a multiplane continuum of various features that people choose to implement or not implement based on local context, desirability and feasibility.

iggldiggl 4y ago

> My guess is, whoever made this, based it on the idea that trains and subways are different things. I think Openrailwaymap started out as a German project ("Bahnkarte") and it might still be somewhat German-dominated to this day (?)… – and in Germany there is indeed a clear legal split between mainline railways and subways, because the latter are built and operated according to the regulations that are also applicable for trams/streetcars, while the former have their own set of applicable laws and regulations. So that relatively hard split might have coloured the world view of the Openrailwaymap creators somewhat in that regard… (Though even in Germany there are some edge cases – the Hamburg and Berlin S-Bahn systems are legally railways and have some, albeit only limited interaction with the rest of the mainline network (respectively in the case of Hamburg some actual through-running again as of a few years ago), but in regards of operations and signalling they're (especially historically) in some ways more closely related to other rapid transit networks than to the rest of the mainline railway. I notice that in Openstreetmap those networks are currently tagged as "light rail", which with regards to the distinction from the regular mainline network might not be that inaccurate, but on the other hand is equally confusing, because "light rail" can mean loads of things: - historically in the UK minor branch railways built according to simplified rules and regulations – but still railways in spirit – were called light railways - these days it gets commonly used for anything between basically souped-up trams (sometimes not even all that souped-up) and full-scale rapid transit-type rail (which at other times is actually termed "heavy metro" if you want to distinguish it from "lesser" light railways) - due to differing crash strength regulations and the historic US approach of "buff strength over alles", some types of (albeit light-weight) European main-line multiple units are seemingly classified as tram-train/light rail operations in the US )

IIAOPSW 4y ago

Try adjusting the zoom. At first I had the same problem with New York, but actually it was just doing that thing online maps do to avoid clutter. Subways are absolutely in there.