[Talk-transit] Announcement re new 'moderation' email list to develop effective responses to vandalism and mistakes
A new 'moderation' email list[1] has been created to help develop effective responses to vandalism and mistakes. To avoid spam subscriber's the first posts will be moderated so don't expect them to appear immediately. Subsequent posts will not be moderated. [1] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/moderation Regards, Peter ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Relations for stop areas in NaPTAN
Jerry wrote: I've just noticed that the relations for stop places generated in the NaPTAN import do not have a type. I just happened to be browsing through some KeepRight issues and noticed a number of relation without type ones. I think the consensus is that these should become type=site. This can be made more specific by either using site=* (eg site=railway_station) and/or traditional tags like railway=station and amenity=bus_station. Peter Miller wrote: I noticed yesterday that the public transport article[1] is still linking to 'User:Oxomoa/Public transport schema' article for tagging information even though this is a personal page and therefore not something that others should touch. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Tirkon seems to have moved the content from Public transport into Public Transport, which was a pre-existing page that linked to Oxomoa's proposal. I'm guessing that this is to better link it to the DE:Public Transport page. I can't remember what we decided about capitalisation conventions (I think we'd said it was worth following the Wikipedia-like Public transport style), so it might be worth reversing these redirects. I have developed a Stop Area article[2] based on Oxomoa's proposal and which also included feedback from CEN. It is currently available as a 'proposed feature'. however it should in general echo current practice. Would it be appropriate to now move it into the main name-space and use it as the primary overview article for stations, bus stops etc? I've been trying to slowly copy some of ideas from your proposal (and other conventions in use) into the Public transport page, and the various mode pages (eg Railways), as well as creating tag-specific pages where appropriate (eg Tag:route=railway). I think this is probably a better approach than trying to have one uber-proposal. If so should we just do it or do a formal vote first. Given that it is actually now a summary of current practice I would recommend moving it without voting but would be happy to follow the majority view. Thoughts please! Agreed we don't need a vote. Community consensus, and working examples, are much more important. Frankie -- Frankie Roberto Experience Designer, Rattle 0114 2706977 http://www.rattlecentral.com ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Relations for stop areas in NaPTAN
On 28 Sep 2009, at 14:58, Frankie Roberto wrote: Jerry wrote: I've just noticed that the relations for stop places generated in the NaPTAN import do not have a type. I just happened to be browsing through some KeepRight issues and noticed a number of relation without type ones. I think the consensus is that these should become type=site. This can be made more specific by either using site=* (eg site=railway_station) and/or traditional tags like railway=station and amenity=bus_station. Firstly I suggest we stick with Stop Area and not use Stop Place. Stop Place is more correct from a CEN standards perspective but Stop Area is very much adopted. I think the site approach makes a lot of sense and it would be straightforward to migrate to this over time. Peter Miller wrote: I noticed yesterday that the public transport article[1] is still linking to 'User:Oxomoa/Public transport schema' article for tagging information even though this is a personal page and therefore not something that others should touch. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Tirkon seems to have moved the content from Public transport into Public Transport, which was a pre-existing page that linked to Oxomoa's proposal. I'm guessing that this is to better link it to the DE:Public Transport page. I can't remember what we decided about capitalisation conventions (I think we'd said it was worth following the Wikipedia- like Public transport style), so it might be worth reversing these redirects. The guidelines page recommends using Wikipedia convention. He also broke a number of redirects which are now double redirects. Can I suggest you 'propose' a move back and that you put your reasons on the talk page to avoid a wiki-war. It would have been polite for the person to have proposed the move in the first place of course. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Wiki_guidelines I have developed a Stop Area article[2] based on Oxomoa's proposal and which also included feedback from CEN. It is currently available as a 'proposed feature'. however it should in general echo current practice. Would it be appropriate to now move it into the main name- space and use it as the primary overview article for stations, bus stops etc? I've been trying to slowly copy some of ideas from your proposal (and other conventions in use) into the Public transport page, and the various mode pages (eg Railways), as well as creating tag- specific pages where appropriate (eg Tag:route=railway). I think this is probably a better approach than trying to have one uber- proposal. To be clear, it is only a proposal for Stop Areas, not for everything to do with public transport, but it could also sit in the relevant articles and fade away over time. I do however think it is useful to have a simple table giving the tags for an 'access' for each transport mode. The discussion sections would of course all be moved to the talk page so the article itself would shrink a lot. If so should we just do it or do a formal vote first. Given that it is actually now a summary of current practice I would recommend moving it without voting but would be happy to follow the majority view. Thoughts please! Agreed we don't need a vote. Community consensus, and working examples, are much more important. Possibly we move it from proposals to the main section and then consider what it's future will be. I would however suggest that we discourage any links to the 'old' proposals, including unified_stop_area and Oxomoa's proposal except for historical background. Possibly we need to get the Germans on board for this since they seem keen on linking to Oxomoa's proposal. Regards, Peter Frankie -- Frankie Roberto Experience Designer, Rattle 0114 2706977 http://www.rattlecentral.com ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Relations for stop areas in NaPTAN
2009/9/28 Jerry Clough - OSM sk53_...@yahoo.co.uk: I've just noticed that the relations for stop places generated in the NaPTAN import do not have a type. I just happened to be browsing through some KeepRight issues and noticed a number of relation without type ones. I'm sure its unimportant right now, but I wondered how the stop place/stop area/interchange ideas are firming up, and what I should do eventually with the NaPTAN data. Jerry I think the type=* tag on relations is ugly, similar to the original class=* tag proposed on every element in the early days of OSM. class=* was dropped, as should type=* be. -- Regards, Thomas Wood (Edgemaster) ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Relations for stop areas in NaPTAN
Am 28.09.2009 15:05, Peter Miller: On 28 Sep 2009, at 13:44, Jerry Clough - OSM wrote: I've just noticed that the relations for stop places generated in the NaPTAN import do not have a type. I just happened to be browsing through some KeepRight issues and noticed a number of relation without type ones. I'm sure its unimportant right now, but I wondered how the stop place/stop area/interchange ideas are firming up, and what I should do eventually with the NaPTAN data. I noticed yesterday that the public transport article[1] is still linking to 'User:Oxomoa/Public transport schema' article for tagging information even though this is a personal page and therefore not something that others should touch. For starters should we agree not to link to personal pages for tagging information? I have developed a Stop Area article[2] based on Oxomoa's proposal and which also included feedback from CEN. It is currently available as a 'proposed feature'. however it should in general echo current practice. Would it be appropriate to now move it into the main name-space and use it as the primary overview article for stations, bus stops etc? If so should we just do it or do a formal vote first. Given that it is actually now a summary of current practice I would recommend moving it without voting but would be happy to follow the majority view. Thoughts please! [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Public_Transport [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Stop_Area Regards, Peter As a late-joiner to this list I definitely vote for moving Oxomoa's proposal to the public wiki space. Could anyone give a quick comment on what the consensus of the list member's on using his proposal is? I've been using it extensively and find it to be well though through and suitable for almost every possible public transport layout and on the same time offering the best possibility to have as much information covered in OSM as possible. Claudius ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Relations for stop areas in NaPTAN
Am 28.09.2009 17:10, Frankie Roberto: 2009/9/28 Thomas Wood grand.edgemas...@gmail.com mailto:grand.edgemas...@gmail.com I think the type=* tag on relations is ugly, similar to the original class=* tag proposed on every element in the early days of OSM. class=* was dropped, as should type=* be. I don't know too much about class=, but I can see an argument that type= might be redundant on relations. However, given that it is in such widespread use, I guess this is a bigger debate to have. Right now, I'm more concerned about which of these patterns is better: type=site site=railway_station or type=site railway=station The first one has the advantage of following the X=Y, Y=Z tag hierarchy convention, the second has the advantage of re-using tags that have long been adopted for nodes. Frankie Why not simply: public_transport=stop_area_group etc as proposed in Oxomoa's proposal? Fixing the JOSM validator to allow public_transport instead of type is an easy task. Claudius ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
