On 2012-11-23 14:29, Cartinus wrote:
On 11/23/2012 12:44 PM, Maarten Deen wrote:
On 2012-11-22 21:14, Wolfgang Wienke wrote:
Do you accept OXOMOA scheme?
This is the first that I ever hear from that scheme.
Please ignore the original oxomoa scheme when tagging bus routes.
There
is a reason the scheme sits in someones private wiki-space: It was the
first step in a long process that ended here [1].
Significant parts of the oxomoa scheme ended up in the final proposal,
but parts of it didn't (like the incredibly insane type=line in stead
of
type=route).
On 11/23/2012 12:44 PM, Maarten Deen wrote:
I don't know how it is done outside Limburg, but in Limburg the
relations are IIRC not grouped. I'm also not entirely sure how we
should
group them. In Germany there is a strong grouping in the
Verkehrsverbünde. We don't have that. We do have concessionareas, but
these can be large (Limburg is one concession, run by Veolia) and can
overlap (in Amsterdam, you'll find busses from different
concessions).
In the central part of The Netherlands the name of the concession used
to be put in the network tag of the relation. I just noticed someone
didn't understand "relations are not categories" and created a
type=public_transport + public_transport=network relation to group the
lines of the concession "BRU stad".
I read from Wolgang's comments that this is also done for the AVV
buslines. And it is common practice for walking and cycling networks.
Or is this a different kind of grouping relation?
Maarten
_______________________________________________
Talk-nl mailing list
Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl
