Le 26. 01. 18 à 10:13, yo paseopor a écrit :
> I was remapping subway stations in Barcelona
> (Spain), following https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Metro_Mapping .
It should be better to move this to /proposed_feature/
to avoid misleading people.
The small banner seems not enought to warn that the proposal
is in conflict with the existing use on several points
> Also I was connecting the stations with some indoor mapping, with
> corridors as ways and tags with levels, basically, but they doesn't
> appear in OpenLevelUp for example, instead of having the correct tags
> because they are not areas (like station in
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5307549252) . Then I started to
> change the concept station combined with an indoor=room and make it an
> area instead of a node (like
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/555806662#map=19/41.38741/2.16943=D
> )
> to looks reasonable and more realistic. In OpenLevelup looks acceptable
> (https://openlevelup.net/?l=-1#19/41.38738/2.16900) but Mapsme subway
> validator (http://osmz.ru/subways/spain.html) says no way.
Ignore all warnings from maps.me that says anything with a surface
must be downgraded to or duplicated with a node/way.
Going from a node to a surface for an object like a building has
always been considered as an improvement.
this is one of the reasons why the previous proposal was rejected.
In some case, routing is hard (the routing to a surface
is more complicated than the routing to a node).
But it is not a good reason to duplicate a building with a node.
I also find it problematic to make a validator claiming that it is
a mistake to do anything other than the personal opinion of its author.
Validators should be used to increase quality on a consensual basis,
not as a tool to push a conflicting view of the tagging.
Otherwise another validator will propose the reverse change,
it is no benefit doing this.
The second proposal has the same problem. I've pointed it out
several times here and on the talk page of the wiki,
I don't understand why the nodes versus area are not fully removed
from the proposal since there is no unanimity for that.
Removal of the 2 conflicting points (the other being the removal
of amenity like taxi from stop_area only for metro but it
are accepted, documented and used for all type of PT) and
focus on one-only topic instead of including contradicted topics
would allow to validate the useful part of the proposal.
Regards,
Marc
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
