#Looking at the table it appears that the article is rather about the history of Oslo Metro lines. Did you consider to move it to
History of Oslo Metro lines?
- There is the article
History of the Oslo Tramway and Metro that has much more detailed information about the history (which is better described in text, and also covers other areas, such as operation, rolling stock, politics etc). This list is an attempt to make a easy overview of the numerical values of each line, which is not discussed at any length (and at least not systematically) in the history article. It just donned on me as I am writing this that I could have added the number of stations to each line, at the time of each expansion.
Arsenikk
(talk)
17:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
- OK. I guess my initial confusion resulted from mixing "lines" with "service".
bamse (
talk)
18:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Could you still add the number of stations to each line at the time of each expansion?
bamse (
talk)
19:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Added.
Arsenikk
(talk)
11:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Thanks.
bamse (
talk)
13:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Is the Common Tunnel a "line"? If yes, the sentence: "They are chronologically sorted by the date of the first section of line to open.", appears to be not true.
- The Common Tunnel is both a line and a tunnel. I cannot see how the statement is untrue, since the first part of the Common Tunnel opened in 1928, after the Kolsås Line (1924) and before the Sognsvann Line (1934).
Arsenikk
(talk)
17:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
- OK. Don't know what I was looking at then, but it appeared not to be ordered by date. Must have been late...
bamse (
talk)
18:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
- The following sentence might be confusing: "If only one or two stations on the line are served by an additional service, it is omitted." I can see the reason for omission, but maybe there is a better way to phrase it, or add a footnote for explanation.
- Changed to "Services are omitted from lines where they serve only one or two stations."
Arsenikk
(talk)
17:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
- I was thinking of adding a reason for the omittance. If it is not confusing to anybody else it is fine with me though.
bamse (
talk)
18:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Also in the "List" section, you probably mean "column" instead of "row" and "last" -> "4th".
- Fixed.
Arsenikk
(talk)
17:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Thanks.
bamse (
talk)
18:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Why do you use stars and blue background to mark light rail services? Is the whole network already officially called Metro even though some of the lines still are light rails?
- It is common to mark such things with both on lists (or so it is on other FLs). The blue is used to color-code to make it easy to see, and the astrix is to help monochrome browsers or colorblind readers to also understand the information, or so I presuem
- I see. OK.
bamse (
talk)
18:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Light rail vs. metro is a matter of discussion in sources. Prior to 1993, the metro and the light rail were independent systems, and prior to 1987 there was not even a transfer station. After 1995, all the trains serving the light rail operate through the Common Tunnel and onwards to places on the metro system. All the light rail lines have been closed for upgrade, and when they are reopened, will have metro standard. This mixing of metro and light rail is therefore now an issue of the past.
Arsenikk
(talk)
17:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
- If I understand the lead section correctly, it will be an issue of the past in 2014, when the last light-rail has been converted. It seems to be a matter of definition, so it is fine with me.
bamse (
talk)
18:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
- The Kolsås and Holmenkoll Lines will be upgraded to metro standard (just like four other lines previously), so this will not be an issue. I think is says so fairly clearly in the lead, but perhaps I am wrong.
Arsenikk
(talk)
11:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Alright.
bamse (
talk)
13:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
- I cannot find the Common Tunnel in the map. Is it the dotted line close to Carl Berners plass? Since it seems important, could it be labeled in the map. It would also be good to have the various lines in different colors in the map.
- That would require me to make a new map from scratch in .svg, which might take some time. Let me look into the issue. The map in question is the best on the Commons right now, is geographically accurate, has the name of all the branches (but as you comment, not the Common Tunnel), and includes both mainline railway and the tramway. Unfortunately, it is in .jpg, so it is virtually impossible to edit, and is from 2005, while the Ring Line had yet to be completed (the dotted line).
Arsenikk
(talk)
17:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Do you have the original (background) map without the lines? I guess simple edits like completing the ring line and marking the tunnel can be done even on jpg. Also service "6" is missing and "4" runs on a different route if
this map is correct. The present map should be marked as "historic" in the article and the image description.
bamse (
talk)
18:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
- I don't have anything except the map you see on this article, plus
a future map and
this. There is also
this, but it lacks line names. Let me fiddle in Inkscape and see what I can produce.
Arsenikk
(talk)
11:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Since the list contains the extension of the lines, maybe you could even have several maps: the present map (marked as "2005 map" in the caption) and the new map which shows the present status.
bamse (
talk)
13:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
- I have added another map, that is up to day what concerns service numbers and lines, is geographically accurate and in vector format. It includes important stations and line names, but lacks the mainline train and tram lines, plus water/settlement information. To show how the metro lays in the cityscape, I have kept the old map, and made a not that it is pre-2006.
Arsenikk
(talk)
11:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Thanks. If
this map is correct, service "5" ends in Storo and services "4" and "6" circle around the ring line before returning to Bergkrystallen and Kolsaas respectively. In your map it seems as if "4,5,6" all end in Nydalen. Which is correct? Maybe it is worthwhile (not essential) to indicate somwhow in the map that all lines use the common line. Also you could mark the tunnel as dotted line or something.
bamse (
talk)
12:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
- To start with the last remark, the way the map is constructed I would have to start from scratch to give the tunnels a dotted line. I have simply converted a bitmap of the line i found on the Commons to an object, which does not allow me to manipulate the lines as I wish. I am trying to figure out how to extract the paths from OpenStreetMap so I can edit it properly, and can produce a much more sophisticated map, but I am only a novice at vector graphics, so it may be beyond the time frame of this FLC to produce such a map. As for the 4/5/6-issue, I see your point, and can move the numbers to below where it says "Ring Line". Hopefully that will be a little more accurate, and I can add a comment in the caption.
Arsenikk
(talk)
23:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
- "4" and "6" under the ring line are better, but "5" ends in Storo (does not circle the ring line) as far as I understand from the map I linked to above. I was under the impression that you had lines in the svg. If they are non-line objects, I agree that it is not easy to make the line dotted. Actually it would have been sufficient to make a schematic map (with straight lines) for 2009, as you already have the 2006 map showing the lines in their environment. If you feel energetic, you could make such a schematic map, or ask at the graphic lab for help. If not, I'd be happy with the present map after the "5" has been fixed.
bamse (
talk)
23:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
- The numbers are located about where Storo is, and line 5 terminates there, while services 4 and 6 change their destinations signs between Storo and Nydalen. I don't quite know what to do to clarify it further, although I can, as you say, get it more accurate when I start again with a schematic or map. and include all stations.
Arsenikk
(talk)
00:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
- It is ok.
bamse (
talk)
09:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Just out of curiosity, it is still not possible to have tables with "rowspan" sortable on wikipedia, is it?
- Yes and no. You can disable sorting in certain rows entirely, but it would disrupt the ordering of other rows. So, if not necessary, rowspan should be avoided.—
Chris!
c/
t
21:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
bamse (
talk)
20:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Thank you for the feedback. I have followed your advice or made a comment about each item.
Arsenikk
(talk)
17:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Thanks, I replied above. One strange thing surprised me. Was service number 6 really started after 3 (and before 4, 5)?
bamse (
talk)
18:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
- The current service numbers date from 2003, when the Ring Line opened. Prior to that, they were mixed with the street tram system, and were inconsistently numbered from 1 to 16.
Arsenikk
(talk)
11:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
- I see, quite confusing the Oslo metro. BTW, if possible, can you specify the starting point ("from") of the metro conversion of the Kolsås Line in the table entry: "Metro standard to Åsjordet"? Also if the metro standard for the Røa Line is from Lijordet to Østerås it should say so: "Metro standard Lijordet – Østerås". When do you put the words "Metro standard" in the section column? It seems a bit arbitrary to me.
bamse (
talk)
13:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Thanks for pointing that out; I've specified all the metro standard sections. I've also added half a sentence to the key section to try to clarify that all white fields involve metro standard. To answer your last question: the list contains the time of the conversion to metro standard, so lines that have never been converted to metro don't have such a listing (either because they haven't opened yet or because they were built as such).
Arsenikk
(talk)
23:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
- I think I got it now. "Metro Standard" spelled out in the table means that the whole line was converted. Correct?
bamse (
talk)
09:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
|