This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
Split Seoul Metropolitan Subway, it was modified according to the current data Seoul Seoul split or else I think, to let Shanghai Maglev Metro Plus, with a length of 567 magnetic levitation.
至此,上海地铁全网运营线路总长首超500公里增至567公里(538公里+磁浮29公里)、车站共计331座(329座+磁浮2座)。 -- Qa003qa003 ( talk) 02:26, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I'm writing my opinion about Seoul Metropolitan Subway, as I was requested to join the conversation. From my point of view - as a student who use the system in daily basis - any line that is under Seoul Metropolitan Unity Fare System should be part of Seoul Metropolitan Subway. The lines that fall into this criteria are : Lines 1~9, Incheon Line 1, Bundang Line, Suin Line (Suin Line is expected to join Bundang Line in future, and is undergoing construction), DX Line (so-called Shinbundang Line), A'REX Normal Train (Seoul-Incheon International Airport Non-stop trains are not under fare system, also Yeongjong Area - from Unseo station to Incheon Airport station doesn't share the fare system), Jungang Line, Gyeongchun Line excluding ITX (ITX don't share the fare system), and Gyeongui Line.
I think this way of deciding is very reasonable, as systems under Seoul Metropolitan Unity Fare are maintained mainly as commuter use (this is why A'REX Geomam - Seoul Station Normal trains are under this system - they are used as commuter trains by Incheon people), and people can actually buy commuting pass (the 30-day commuting pass) to use in those systems.
Under this criterion, U Line (Uijeongbu LRT) and Everline (Yongin LRT) doesn't satisfy this. It is true that they are used as commuting use, but as they don't allow commuting passes, etc, we can't view them as the part of the whole system. U Line should be considered as Metro system of Uijeongbu City, and Everline as system of Yongin City.
If we don't make this criterion as this now, the 'Seoul Metro question' would come again when Ui LRT (우이경전철) which is built. Ui LRT is also part of Seoul Unity Fare, and also goes only through Seoul area.
And, about Incheon Airport KTX issue, if we say that A'REX don't become part of Seoul Metro system anymore because they have normal bullet trains operated at the line, we need to also separate part of Line 1. Line 1's Gyeongbu Section has their Express Trains (Cheonan Express, Yongsan Express, and Seoul (Aboveground) Express) and Gwangmyeong Shuttle trains running on same tracks as KTX, Saemaeul, and so on.
It isn't an easy issue, I think we need to discuss this issue by taking plenty of time. MinSik CHO ( talk) 05:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes Line 1 has already been separated no need to worry. Terramorphous ( talk) 15:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
As I have pointed out before the RER and Tokyo has a very similar setup and is not counted. Every single metro train sould only operate on their own tracks even expresses (A and B Rapids) to count. Terramorphous ( talk) 15:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
I'll pop in here but won't be watching super closely for a heated debate as I haven't the time. I normally go off of the large printed signs inside the subway stations as to what is part of the metro system and what is not. The system is designed to be one massive system. Lines 1-9, AREX (no free transfer but plenty of transfers exist), Jungang, Gyeongui, Gyeongchun, Bundang, Suin, Sinbundang, Incheon 1 all allow free transfers. I know U Line doesn't give free transfers as there were budgetary issues and a sticker has been placed on some (but not all) of the signs to remove it from official maps but the stations are designed for transfers there. In the future I believe Uijeongbu City will follow through with original agreements and subsidise the line allowing a full and complete integration aka free transfers. The EverLine is included on maps provided by the subway stations themselves so I assume it has a free transfer and I have no reason to think it is not part of the system in Seoul.
All of these lines are connected to each other. All of these lines are meant to be one large system. And all of these lines (with occasional exception to U Line as it appears on some maps but not on others) are part of the same mass transit/metro/tube/subway/whatever-term-you-want-to-use-system. These are all one system and should be acknowledged as such.
₪Rickn
Asia₪ 12:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes but where to draw the line. I know its a large system and its so mixed a line is hard to draw. If we start adding stuff to the count it really starts looking like Original Research and not to mention you get some pretty ridiculous numbers. We are going to have to cut somewhere as the system is way too ambiguous. I agree we have to add appropriate lines that are rapid transit. However I think we should be strict on the criteria given how we are making an exception and how ambiguous the network is. Seoul has explosive growth in length not because of line openings but because we are gradually loosening the criteria of rapid transit for a very blurred system. If we are going to make an exception that is different from outside opinion I expect it to be very strict and defendable. I'd say look at the Korean pages for solutions. They clearly know and understand the system better than we do and managed to make it work under wikipedia's guidelines. Terramorphous ( talk) 15:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
I have already reviewed
WP:original research and know what I'm talking about when I say something is clearly original research, thanks. The reference clearly says that:
Commuter rails "using either locomotive hauled or self-propelled railroad passenger cars, is generally characterized by:
Since all subway lines in the Seoul Metropolitan Subway use a single fare system with no multi-trip tickets nor specific station to station fares, they are not a commuter rail but a single metro system because they meet all the requirement of a heavy rail (with exceptions like AREX from April 2014 that we have discussed above):
"Heavy Rail (HR)
A transit mode that is an electric railway with the capacity for a heavy volume of traffic. It is characterized by:
Massyparcer ( talk) 06:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Massyparcer ( talk) 19:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Once the extension to Yongsan on Gyeongui Line is completed at the end of 2014, that part will be included too. Ui Line and Incheon Line 2 and Sinlim will all be included in the future once they open since they all meet the official definitions above. I have made this very clear on the Seoul Metropolitan Subway's article: While technical definitions of a subway, metro or rapid transit vary from country to country, applying the definitions from the International Association of Public Transport, [1] American Public Transportation Association, [2] U.S. Department of Transportation, [3] and the Transport Research Laboratory, [4] the following sections of the Seoul Metropolitan Subway fully meet the criterias set in the sources:
The total length of the metro sections of the Seoul Metropolitan Subway total out at 720 km with 442 stations (with transfer stations counted as one). Massyparcer ( talk) 14:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Numerous official and reliable sources below agree with us, so I don't see where you're going with your claim that "no outside source agrees". Where is your source showing an outside source disagreeing with us? I don't see how you can get any more accurate and reliable on defining a metro system other than the following sources:
Explain to me how it is inflated. Simply saying that it is inflated and saying nothing to back up your claim suggests ignorance. Show me any other reliable source other than the above on defining a metro criteria. If you continue to ignore the official sources above, we need an admin to this article to deal with this kind of ignorance. Massyparcer ( talk) 17:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm just going stop by to note here my vehement opposition to the recent deletion of the Incheon Subway and it's bundling into Seoul - it is owned by Incheon, not Seoul, and should not be bundled in that way. -- IJBall ( talk) 20:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't see why you're going against all the evidence presented on this talkpage and existing and previous consensus without valid sources or even reasons. You have not been a constructive editor to this issue, let alone be a "net cop" as you claim since you have proven in this talk page that you are
yet you're not admitting a single one of of that. I can only conclude that your sole interest seems to be cutting Seoul's tally for no reason, which is substantially violating WP:Neutral point of view. The current length for Seoul is fully sourced from the official operators's websites (Seoul Metropolitan Rapid Transit's http://www.smrt.co.kr/main/publish/view.jsp?menuID=001007003007, Korail.com and so on) and the South Korean government - Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport http://english.molit.go.kr. These figures come directly from the horse's mouth who funded and built this subway system in the first place and meet all the internationally-agreed criteria for a metro that we have on this article and the existing consensus,so making such false claims is complete nonsense, IJ. Regarding Incheon Subway, I have already explained that the Seoul Metropolitan Subway serves the Seoul Metropolitan Area - It is shared between Seoul and Incheon using a single fare structure, just like BART serving the San Francisco Bay Area, which is shared between the cities of Alameda, Contra Costa, San Francisco, and San Mateo. Just to make this crystal clear - Legally, Article 3 of the Terms of Passenger Transport by Incheon Transit defines the system as "Seoul Metropolitan Rapid Transit" lastly amended on 21st February 2012 ("수도권 도시철도" 인천교통공사 여객운송약관, 2012년 2월 21일 약관 제3호). Source: http://www.ictr.or.kr/files/여객운송약관.hwp
제3조(정의) 이 약관에서 사용하는 용어의 정의는 다음 각 호와 같습니다.
Translation: Article 3 (Definition) The definition of the term used in this clause is as follows.
1. “수도권 도시철도”란 인천교통공사, 서울메트로, 서울특별시도시철도공사, 서울시메트로9호선(주), 코레일공항철도(주), 신분당선(주)가 운영하는 구간 및 한국철도공사가 운영하는 광역전철 구간을 말합니다.
Translation: "Seoul Metropolitan Rapid Transit" refers to the sections of metropolitan subways operated by Incheon Transit, Seoul Metro, Seoul Metropolitan Rapid Transit Corporation, Seoul Metro Line 9, Korail Airport Railroad, Sinbundang Line and Korail.
〈 개정 (Amended) 2009. 8. 20, 2009. 10. 5, 2011. 7. 15, 2011. 12. 23, 2012. 2. 21 〉
Massyparcer ( talk) 01:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
There seems to be no end in this discussion :( As I've mentioned few times, along with Massyparcer have, inclusion of all other parts of the system except U Line and Everline should be a certain thing. It is regulated by local law as a whole system, and is also maintained as one metro system. You may say that Incheon is a big metropolitan city, but as Seoul expanded, Incheon is just one of big satellite cities of Seoul. Having Incheon Metro Line 1 apart, while leaving Line 7 Incheon Section (Onsu - Bupyeong gu Office), Line 1 Gyeongin section (Guro - Incheon) would be a weird-o, and wouldn't reflect the real fact. I see there has been some concerns about lack of sources - partially due to the fact that Seoul system is very different from others. However, from my point of view, local law does the right job. Researches conducted on Seoul Metro system is based on the definition of the local law, and the maintainers perceive them as one system. For U line and Everline, I share a common concern. I think you might have misunderstood my words above due to inappropriate wording - about the unity fare. I think unity fare is one of the aspects that can show integrity of the system. Currently, one of the biggest reason Seoul Metro, KORAIL, SMRT, and Korail A'REX doesn't show these line on the system maps are because of different fare system - as drawing on same map could confuse the passengers. For now, I think we could separate U line to Uijeongbu City and Everline to Yongin City. For Seoul Metro system, I think these should be included:
As a reference, these lines should be included in future:
I've listed above just to re-clarity as it has been really contentious. It's basically the same but exclusion of U & Everline, as they are relatively loosely connected to the system. The list above is based on basic definitions of metro + metro trains having own way to go. And, as I've said before, inconsistency of longest line with external sources shouldn't be a justification to change the criteria of Seoul Metro System. We should rather clarify by telling multiple criteria that can be used, and many sources use certain criteria to evaluate Shanghai as longest. I think this debate should focus on determining logical criteria for Korean systems, as there are multiple systems in construction, and we can't have long debates everytime new line is added. If we adjust Seoul system to be shorter so that Shanghai becomes 1st for now, it would first lose integrity, but in long run, we would have to readjust the criteria everytime new line is added to Seoul System. Seoul system isn't a something that should depend on other line's fate. Considering that there are many extensions that would be done - such as Line 9 Extension Phase 2&3&4, Ui-Sinseol Line, Shin Ansan Line, Incheon Line 2, Line 7 Seoknam Extension, and a lot more. Cheers, people :) It's surely a very complex system. PS My foreign (two from West, one from East, one from Canada) teachers all call network of Seoul Metro 'subway' - even Gyeongchun line. By living in this place, you never get to really distinguish two as different systems. They are all part of the big Seoul Metro System. MinSik CHO ( talk) 12:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Given that Incheon Transit made amendments to the law each time a new subway joined the system, I'm pretty sure amendments will be made soon for Everline once it joins the unity fare within a few weeks. Until then, we can leave this one out as per the source. I will also add the official law to a note on Seoul Metropolitan Subway's name on the list just to make things crystal clear to everyone. Massyparcer ( talk) 16:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
And still yet another reference lists Shanghai as the "longest in the world": [1] So we're still absolutely counting Seoul wrong here. -- IJBall ( talk) 02:02, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
제3조(정의) 이 약관에서 사용하는 용어의 정의는 다음 각 호와 같습니다.
Translation: Article 3 (Definition) The definition of the term used in this clause is as follows.
1. “수도권 도시철도”란 인천교통공사, 서울메트로, 서울특별시도시철도공사, 서울시메트로9호선(주), 코레일공항철도(주), 신분당선(주)가 운영하는 구간 및 한국철도공사가 운영하는 광역전철 구간을 말합니다.
Translation: "Seoul Metropolitan Rapid Transit" refers to the sections of metropolitan subways operated by Incheon Transit, Seoul Metro, Seoul Metropolitan Rapid Transit Corporation, Seoul Metro Line 9, Korail Airport Railroad, Sinbundang Line and Korail.
〈 개정 (Amended) 2009. 8. 20, 2009. 10. 5, 2011. 7. 15, 2011. 12. 23, 2012. 2. 21 〉
Source: http://www.ictr.or.kr/files/여객운송약관.hwp Massyparcer ( talk) 13:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I asked Korean Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport (MOLIT) about how they think about defining 'Seoul Metro System'. They replied that in respect to related Korean laws,
They replied that internally, by using term 'Seoul Metro System', they indicate
So, they suggested (but not official) to use these lines as Seoul Metro System:
The basic assertion of Korean government is that any 광역철도 line that has section in Seoul area and any 도시철도 line that are in Large Seoul Metropolitan Area. Applying this criteria, U&Yongin Line would be separated even after unity fare. The thing I expect some others to resist is that Korean Ministry - which actually maintains the system - perceives Gyeongui, Gyeongchun, Jungang lines as metro lines. I also agree to the government that reflecting on local law, there are no faulty things to regard them as part of Seoul Metro System. Anyways, they've concreted that Seoul Metro extends to large Seoul area, including Ilsan/Gwacheon/Ansan sections. Using this criteria, Ui LRT, Shin Ansan, Line 9 Step 2~4 Extension, Sosa-Daegok-Wonsi, Meonmok, Incheon 2 will be included in near future. MinSik CHO ( talk) 11:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. The government has definitely cleared up this issue very clearly. I agree with Cho that the Seoul Metro System (as the government calls it) is most accurately defined by the government who built and funded this system in the first place. There's no point in a random Wiki user who has never been to Seoul coming up with an original research and disagreeing with the government who founded this subway system and the official operator with no reliable source. And there are no other reliable sources than the government and the operator that directly back up the facts in this case as per WP:Sources. Not English or Chinese news media reports that have proven to be highly unreliable. We have two of the highest government bodies who agree with each other here, Incheon Transit, the official operator which makes the same definition on Article 3 in its Terms of Passenger Transportation and the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport, the Korean government which Cho mentioned. It couldn't get any clearer. I agree with the government and Cho that in its current state, both Ever and U Line can't be included in the Seoul Metropolitan Subway. But as the government has said in Cho's reply that "기준을 어떻게 잡느냐에 따라 그 범위는 달라질 수 있음" - We have to see if their stance on this changes after they join the unity fare. After all, Korail wouldn't be listing the Everline in Bundang Line's subway map and making internal announcements in these lines for no reason. A reply from a Seoul Metro official shows they haven't included Everline in the metro maps due to confusion to users (because they do not allows free transfers) - Not for technical reasons. The government's reply says that Seoul Metropolitan Subway refers to " 일반적으로 수도권에서 운영되는 도시철도", where Ever and U Lin are both rapid transits operated in Sudogwon. I will contact the government again after Everline joins unity fare, as well as Seoul Metro on the map inclusion. As for lines like Jungang and Gyeongchun, I think they should be included in the list as per government definition, a view I share with Cho. But I also think that the other lines fully meet the American criteria used in this Wiki, so there is absolutely zero debate needed on those lines, even when applying American definitions or laws. The current count meets both Korean and every American/International law we have on this article, so there is no reason to disagree with that. Massyparcer ( talk) 14:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
Split Seoul Metropolitan Subway, it was modified according to the current data Seoul Seoul split or else I think, to let Shanghai Maglev Metro Plus, with a length of 567 magnetic levitation.
至此,上海地铁全网运营线路总长首超500公里增至567公里(538公里+磁浮29公里)、车站共计331座(329座+磁浮2座)。 -- Qa003qa003 ( talk) 02:26, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I'm writing my opinion about Seoul Metropolitan Subway, as I was requested to join the conversation. From my point of view - as a student who use the system in daily basis - any line that is under Seoul Metropolitan Unity Fare System should be part of Seoul Metropolitan Subway. The lines that fall into this criteria are : Lines 1~9, Incheon Line 1, Bundang Line, Suin Line (Suin Line is expected to join Bundang Line in future, and is undergoing construction), DX Line (so-called Shinbundang Line), A'REX Normal Train (Seoul-Incheon International Airport Non-stop trains are not under fare system, also Yeongjong Area - from Unseo station to Incheon Airport station doesn't share the fare system), Jungang Line, Gyeongchun Line excluding ITX (ITX don't share the fare system), and Gyeongui Line.
I think this way of deciding is very reasonable, as systems under Seoul Metropolitan Unity Fare are maintained mainly as commuter use (this is why A'REX Geomam - Seoul Station Normal trains are under this system - they are used as commuter trains by Incheon people), and people can actually buy commuting pass (the 30-day commuting pass) to use in those systems.
Under this criterion, U Line (Uijeongbu LRT) and Everline (Yongin LRT) doesn't satisfy this. It is true that they are used as commuting use, but as they don't allow commuting passes, etc, we can't view them as the part of the whole system. U Line should be considered as Metro system of Uijeongbu City, and Everline as system of Yongin City.
If we don't make this criterion as this now, the 'Seoul Metro question' would come again when Ui LRT (우이경전철) which is built. Ui LRT is also part of Seoul Unity Fare, and also goes only through Seoul area.
And, about Incheon Airport KTX issue, if we say that A'REX don't become part of Seoul Metro system anymore because they have normal bullet trains operated at the line, we need to also separate part of Line 1. Line 1's Gyeongbu Section has their Express Trains (Cheonan Express, Yongsan Express, and Seoul (Aboveground) Express) and Gwangmyeong Shuttle trains running on same tracks as KTX, Saemaeul, and so on.
It isn't an easy issue, I think we need to discuss this issue by taking plenty of time. MinSik CHO ( talk) 05:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes Line 1 has already been separated no need to worry. Terramorphous ( talk) 15:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
As I have pointed out before the RER and Tokyo has a very similar setup and is not counted. Every single metro train sould only operate on their own tracks even expresses (A and B Rapids) to count. Terramorphous ( talk) 15:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
I'll pop in here but won't be watching super closely for a heated debate as I haven't the time. I normally go off of the large printed signs inside the subway stations as to what is part of the metro system and what is not. The system is designed to be one massive system. Lines 1-9, AREX (no free transfer but plenty of transfers exist), Jungang, Gyeongui, Gyeongchun, Bundang, Suin, Sinbundang, Incheon 1 all allow free transfers. I know U Line doesn't give free transfers as there were budgetary issues and a sticker has been placed on some (but not all) of the signs to remove it from official maps but the stations are designed for transfers there. In the future I believe Uijeongbu City will follow through with original agreements and subsidise the line allowing a full and complete integration aka free transfers. The EverLine is included on maps provided by the subway stations themselves so I assume it has a free transfer and I have no reason to think it is not part of the system in Seoul.
All of these lines are connected to each other. All of these lines are meant to be one large system. And all of these lines (with occasional exception to U Line as it appears on some maps but not on others) are part of the same mass transit/metro/tube/subway/whatever-term-you-want-to-use-system. These are all one system and should be acknowledged as such.
₪Rickn
Asia₪ 12:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes but where to draw the line. I know its a large system and its so mixed a line is hard to draw. If we start adding stuff to the count it really starts looking like Original Research and not to mention you get some pretty ridiculous numbers. We are going to have to cut somewhere as the system is way too ambiguous. I agree we have to add appropriate lines that are rapid transit. However I think we should be strict on the criteria given how we are making an exception and how ambiguous the network is. Seoul has explosive growth in length not because of line openings but because we are gradually loosening the criteria of rapid transit for a very blurred system. If we are going to make an exception that is different from outside opinion I expect it to be very strict and defendable. I'd say look at the Korean pages for solutions. They clearly know and understand the system better than we do and managed to make it work under wikipedia's guidelines. Terramorphous ( talk) 15:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
I have already reviewed
WP:original research and know what I'm talking about when I say something is clearly original research, thanks. The reference clearly says that:
Commuter rails "using either locomotive hauled or self-propelled railroad passenger cars, is generally characterized by:
Since all subway lines in the Seoul Metropolitan Subway use a single fare system with no multi-trip tickets nor specific station to station fares, they are not a commuter rail but a single metro system because they meet all the requirement of a heavy rail (with exceptions like AREX from April 2014 that we have discussed above):
"Heavy Rail (HR)
A transit mode that is an electric railway with the capacity for a heavy volume of traffic. It is characterized by:
Massyparcer ( talk) 06:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Massyparcer ( talk) 19:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Once the extension to Yongsan on Gyeongui Line is completed at the end of 2014, that part will be included too. Ui Line and Incheon Line 2 and Sinlim will all be included in the future once they open since they all meet the official definitions above. I have made this very clear on the Seoul Metropolitan Subway's article: While technical definitions of a subway, metro or rapid transit vary from country to country, applying the definitions from the International Association of Public Transport, [1] American Public Transportation Association, [2] U.S. Department of Transportation, [3] and the Transport Research Laboratory, [4] the following sections of the Seoul Metropolitan Subway fully meet the criterias set in the sources:
The total length of the metro sections of the Seoul Metropolitan Subway total out at 720 km with 442 stations (with transfer stations counted as one). Massyparcer ( talk) 14:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Numerous official and reliable sources below agree with us, so I don't see where you're going with your claim that "no outside source agrees". Where is your source showing an outside source disagreeing with us? I don't see how you can get any more accurate and reliable on defining a metro system other than the following sources:
Explain to me how it is inflated. Simply saying that it is inflated and saying nothing to back up your claim suggests ignorance. Show me any other reliable source other than the above on defining a metro criteria. If you continue to ignore the official sources above, we need an admin to this article to deal with this kind of ignorance. Massyparcer ( talk) 17:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm just going stop by to note here my vehement opposition to the recent deletion of the Incheon Subway and it's bundling into Seoul - it is owned by Incheon, not Seoul, and should not be bundled in that way. -- IJBall ( talk) 20:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't see why you're going against all the evidence presented on this talkpage and existing and previous consensus without valid sources or even reasons. You have not been a constructive editor to this issue, let alone be a "net cop" as you claim since you have proven in this talk page that you are
yet you're not admitting a single one of of that. I can only conclude that your sole interest seems to be cutting Seoul's tally for no reason, which is substantially violating WP:Neutral point of view. The current length for Seoul is fully sourced from the official operators's websites (Seoul Metropolitan Rapid Transit's http://www.smrt.co.kr/main/publish/view.jsp?menuID=001007003007, Korail.com and so on) and the South Korean government - Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport http://english.molit.go.kr. These figures come directly from the horse's mouth who funded and built this subway system in the first place and meet all the internationally-agreed criteria for a metro that we have on this article and the existing consensus,so making such false claims is complete nonsense, IJ. Regarding Incheon Subway, I have already explained that the Seoul Metropolitan Subway serves the Seoul Metropolitan Area - It is shared between Seoul and Incheon using a single fare structure, just like BART serving the San Francisco Bay Area, which is shared between the cities of Alameda, Contra Costa, San Francisco, and San Mateo. Just to make this crystal clear - Legally, Article 3 of the Terms of Passenger Transport by Incheon Transit defines the system as "Seoul Metropolitan Rapid Transit" lastly amended on 21st February 2012 ("수도권 도시철도" 인천교통공사 여객운송약관, 2012년 2월 21일 약관 제3호). Source: http://www.ictr.or.kr/files/여객운송약관.hwp
제3조(정의) 이 약관에서 사용하는 용어의 정의는 다음 각 호와 같습니다.
Translation: Article 3 (Definition) The definition of the term used in this clause is as follows.
1. “수도권 도시철도”란 인천교통공사, 서울메트로, 서울특별시도시철도공사, 서울시메트로9호선(주), 코레일공항철도(주), 신분당선(주)가 운영하는 구간 및 한국철도공사가 운영하는 광역전철 구간을 말합니다.
Translation: "Seoul Metropolitan Rapid Transit" refers to the sections of metropolitan subways operated by Incheon Transit, Seoul Metro, Seoul Metropolitan Rapid Transit Corporation, Seoul Metro Line 9, Korail Airport Railroad, Sinbundang Line and Korail.
〈 개정 (Amended) 2009. 8. 20, 2009. 10. 5, 2011. 7. 15, 2011. 12. 23, 2012. 2. 21 〉
Massyparcer ( talk) 01:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
There seems to be no end in this discussion :( As I've mentioned few times, along with Massyparcer have, inclusion of all other parts of the system except U Line and Everline should be a certain thing. It is regulated by local law as a whole system, and is also maintained as one metro system. You may say that Incheon is a big metropolitan city, but as Seoul expanded, Incheon is just one of big satellite cities of Seoul. Having Incheon Metro Line 1 apart, while leaving Line 7 Incheon Section (Onsu - Bupyeong gu Office), Line 1 Gyeongin section (Guro - Incheon) would be a weird-o, and wouldn't reflect the real fact. I see there has been some concerns about lack of sources - partially due to the fact that Seoul system is very different from others. However, from my point of view, local law does the right job. Researches conducted on Seoul Metro system is based on the definition of the local law, and the maintainers perceive them as one system. For U line and Everline, I share a common concern. I think you might have misunderstood my words above due to inappropriate wording - about the unity fare. I think unity fare is one of the aspects that can show integrity of the system. Currently, one of the biggest reason Seoul Metro, KORAIL, SMRT, and Korail A'REX doesn't show these line on the system maps are because of different fare system - as drawing on same map could confuse the passengers. For now, I think we could separate U line to Uijeongbu City and Everline to Yongin City. For Seoul Metro system, I think these should be included:
As a reference, these lines should be included in future:
I've listed above just to re-clarity as it has been really contentious. It's basically the same but exclusion of U & Everline, as they are relatively loosely connected to the system. The list above is based on basic definitions of metro + metro trains having own way to go. And, as I've said before, inconsistency of longest line with external sources shouldn't be a justification to change the criteria of Seoul Metro System. We should rather clarify by telling multiple criteria that can be used, and many sources use certain criteria to evaluate Shanghai as longest. I think this debate should focus on determining logical criteria for Korean systems, as there are multiple systems in construction, and we can't have long debates everytime new line is added. If we adjust Seoul system to be shorter so that Shanghai becomes 1st for now, it would first lose integrity, but in long run, we would have to readjust the criteria everytime new line is added to Seoul System. Seoul system isn't a something that should depend on other line's fate. Considering that there are many extensions that would be done - such as Line 9 Extension Phase 2&3&4, Ui-Sinseol Line, Shin Ansan Line, Incheon Line 2, Line 7 Seoknam Extension, and a lot more. Cheers, people :) It's surely a very complex system. PS My foreign (two from West, one from East, one from Canada) teachers all call network of Seoul Metro 'subway' - even Gyeongchun line. By living in this place, you never get to really distinguish two as different systems. They are all part of the big Seoul Metro System. MinSik CHO ( talk) 12:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Given that Incheon Transit made amendments to the law each time a new subway joined the system, I'm pretty sure amendments will be made soon for Everline once it joins the unity fare within a few weeks. Until then, we can leave this one out as per the source. I will also add the official law to a note on Seoul Metropolitan Subway's name on the list just to make things crystal clear to everyone. Massyparcer ( talk) 16:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
And still yet another reference lists Shanghai as the "longest in the world": [1] So we're still absolutely counting Seoul wrong here. -- IJBall ( talk) 02:02, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
제3조(정의) 이 약관에서 사용하는 용어의 정의는 다음 각 호와 같습니다.
Translation: Article 3 (Definition) The definition of the term used in this clause is as follows.
1. “수도권 도시철도”란 인천교통공사, 서울메트로, 서울특별시도시철도공사, 서울시메트로9호선(주), 코레일공항철도(주), 신분당선(주)가 운영하는 구간 및 한국철도공사가 운영하는 광역전철 구간을 말합니다.
Translation: "Seoul Metropolitan Rapid Transit" refers to the sections of metropolitan subways operated by Incheon Transit, Seoul Metro, Seoul Metropolitan Rapid Transit Corporation, Seoul Metro Line 9, Korail Airport Railroad, Sinbundang Line and Korail.
〈 개정 (Amended) 2009. 8. 20, 2009. 10. 5, 2011. 7. 15, 2011. 12. 23, 2012. 2. 21 〉
Source: http://www.ictr.or.kr/files/여객운송약관.hwp Massyparcer ( talk) 13:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I asked Korean Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport (MOLIT) about how they think about defining 'Seoul Metro System'. They replied that in respect to related Korean laws,
They replied that internally, by using term 'Seoul Metro System', they indicate
So, they suggested (but not official) to use these lines as Seoul Metro System:
The basic assertion of Korean government is that any 광역철도 line that has section in Seoul area and any 도시철도 line that are in Large Seoul Metropolitan Area. Applying this criteria, U&Yongin Line would be separated even after unity fare. The thing I expect some others to resist is that Korean Ministry - which actually maintains the system - perceives Gyeongui, Gyeongchun, Jungang lines as metro lines. I also agree to the government that reflecting on local law, there are no faulty things to regard them as part of Seoul Metro System. Anyways, they've concreted that Seoul Metro extends to large Seoul area, including Ilsan/Gwacheon/Ansan sections. Using this criteria, Ui LRT, Shin Ansan, Line 9 Step 2~4 Extension, Sosa-Daegok-Wonsi, Meonmok, Incheon 2 will be included in near future. MinSik CHO ( talk) 11:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. The government has definitely cleared up this issue very clearly. I agree with Cho that the Seoul Metro System (as the government calls it) is most accurately defined by the government who built and funded this system in the first place. There's no point in a random Wiki user who has never been to Seoul coming up with an original research and disagreeing with the government who founded this subway system and the official operator with no reliable source. And there are no other reliable sources than the government and the operator that directly back up the facts in this case as per WP:Sources. Not English or Chinese news media reports that have proven to be highly unreliable. We have two of the highest government bodies who agree with each other here, Incheon Transit, the official operator which makes the same definition on Article 3 in its Terms of Passenger Transportation and the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport, the Korean government which Cho mentioned. It couldn't get any clearer. I agree with the government and Cho that in its current state, both Ever and U Line can't be included in the Seoul Metropolitan Subway. But as the government has said in Cho's reply that "기준을 어떻게 잡느냐에 따라 그 범위는 달라질 수 있음" - We have to see if their stance on this changes after they join the unity fare. After all, Korail wouldn't be listing the Everline in Bundang Line's subway map and making internal announcements in these lines for no reason. A reply from a Seoul Metro official shows they haven't included Everline in the metro maps due to confusion to users (because they do not allows free transfers) - Not for technical reasons. The government's reply says that Seoul Metropolitan Subway refers to " 일반적으로 수도권에서 운영되는 도시철도", where Ever and U Lin are both rapid transits operated in Sudogwon. I will contact the government again after Everline joins unity fare, as well as Seoul Metro on the map inclusion. As for lines like Jungang and Gyeongchun, I think they should be included in the list as per government definition, a view I share with Cho. But I also think that the other lines fully meet the American criteria used in this Wiki, so there is absolutely zero debate needed on those lines, even when applying American definitions or laws. The current count meets both Korean and every American/International law we have on this article, so there is no reason to disagree with that. Massyparcer ( talk) 14:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)