[Talk-transit] Public transport proposal
Hello all, I note with some alarm the very complex, relation-heavy proposal for mapping simple public transport objects. Could I have your assurance that the proponents of this proposal will also be providing good-quality patches for the three principal editors (Potlatch, JOSM, Merkaartor), with an easy-to-use interface consistent with the rest of the editor? cheers Richard ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Public transport proposal
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: Hello all, I note with some alarm the very complex, relation-heavy proposal for mapping simple public transport objects. We don't appear to have got beyond the is this really necessary question yet. At the moment it's akin to putting access=yes on a highway=residential - true, harmless, and pointless. Richard ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Public transport proposal
Am 13.01.11 13:27, schrieb Richard Fairhurst: Hello all, I note with some alarm the very complex, relation-heavy proposal for mapping simple public transport objects. No need to panic, you don't *have* to use relations. Putting the node for a bus_stop on the correct place (that is where you see the pole) is already a good start for a normal mapper. If possible, add a note=bus no xy as written on the time-table. The rest might be done by other mappers. Could I have your assurance that the proponents of this proposal will also be providing good-quality patches for the three principal editors (Potlatch, JOSM, Merkaartor), with an easy-to-use interface consistent with the rest of the editor? A preset for josm is already in progress. Greetings, André Joost ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Public transport proposal
After reading the complexity of the proposal for something as simple as a bus stop I thought I should stress something that I believe as important: Mappers are precious. There has been some discussion on IRC about this proposal and these are few of the comments: /These proposal-twiddlers completely miss the point about how precious mappers are. I've checked about 2000 bus stops - I would have done about 10 if I had to mangle a relation each time. highway=bus_stop beside the way causes extra preprocessing for routing software. .. so? highway=bus_stop beside the way = easy to map well, any place the node is added is easy. let Intel and AMD worry about the rest the thing about these we must have neat structures for routing software [people] is that _none_ of them have ever written any routing software/ There were no supportive comments. Please remember this is a mapping project, not an IT project. Ease of editing is the key to getting data and without data we are all sunk. -- Cheers, Chris user: chillly ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Public transport proposal
André Joost wrote: No need to panic, you don't *have* to use relations. I'm not panicking as a mapper. As a mapper I have exactly 0.0 interest in mapping bus stops. I'm anxious as an editor (co-)author. If such relations become widespread, they will (without explicit support) appear in editors as unexplained, anonymous, undocumented entries in the standard relations view. Inexperienced mappers will, therefore, break them. At this point people will start ranting XYZ editor breaks public transport relations, BAN XYZ EDITOR!!^%!@£. Believe me, I've seen it countless times before. Potlatch 2 has dedicated editors for route relations and turn-restriction relations. If this proposal is to be adopted (and I concur exactly with Chris Hill's thoughts on its merits, but that's by-the-by), it will need to be supported in a similar way. It is incumbent on those making the proposal to consider how this might be achieved. Saying oh, the editor writers are my coding bitches and will happily spend a weekend of their time supporting my latest idea is not an answer. A preset for josm is already in progress. And Potlatch and Merkaartor? You can't just support your own favourite editor and consider your responsibility absolved. cheers Richard ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Public transport proposal
On 01/13/2011 01:27 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Hello all, I note with some alarm the very complex, relation-heavy proposal for mapping simple public transport objects. Suddenly I am not all alone? Greetings, LMB ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Public transport proposal
Am 13.01.2011 21:33, Michał Borsuk: On 13 January 2011 13:59, André Joost andre+jo...@nurfuerspam.de mailto:andre%2bjo...@nurfuerspam.de wrote: Am 13.01.11 13:27, schrieb Richard Fairhurst: Could I have your assurance that the proponents of this proposal will also be providing good-quality patches for the three principal editors (Potlatch, JOSM, Merkaartor), with an easy-to-use interface consistent with the rest of the editor? A preset for josm is already in progress. With what's in the proposal? That's pretty arogant, don't you find? We haven't decided on the final shape yet. I don't see any arrogance here. Have you used JOSM before? I guess you did so you know that presets must be actively downloaded and enabled by the users hidden in the preferences. Somewhere besides the Doctors in Greece, the OpenPisteMap and the Japanese 50 sounds order presets. A preset could help testing the proposal during daily work and in the daily environment to see if it works like it as envisioned. Still I can't see no arrogance anywhere. And btw I like this do-ocratic part of JOSM just like some well intentioned exchange of ideas. Claudius ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Proposed Feature - 2nd RFC - Public Transport
Dominik Mahrer wrote: One month ago I already posted an RFC on this proposal. In the meantime I got plenty of comments and I have extended/corrected/rewritten nearly the whole proposal. I'm not very happy with the extensive use of relations. Especially nested relations strongly suggest that the level of complexity is beyond what's appropriate for a crowd-sourced project like OSM. The most prominent issue are stop area groups. The necessity of these has already been questioned. I, too, tend to think that determining them algorithmically would ultimately be a better choice. Removing the nested relations for stop area groups would eliminate one of the most complex concepts from the proposal, making it more accessible to mappers. Additionally, I suggest to reconsider the requirement to use stop area relations even in simple cases Many bus stops are very straightforward: They consist of usually two platforms with a common name. This name is usually unique within a range of several kilometres and, if tagged to the platform elements, could therefore be used instead of a relation to identify the components of the stop area. Tobias Knerr ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Public transport proposal
Hello Am 13.01.2011 21:57, schrieb Michał Borsuk: Somewhere besides the Doctors in Greece, the OpenPisteMap and the Japanese 50 sounds order presets. A preset could help testing the proposal You must be kidding me. The proposal is in the stage of a DISCUSSION, not even voting! This is simply acting behind the back of the entire community, trying to push the proposal because it has been tested. Where is your problem? No body said This preset is productiv und you must use it *now*! So men working on there own on a preset that whould support that proposal, You talking over all the time that this proposal is to difficult for newbies and beginners and to overbloated. Whith any kind of an preset for JOSM it is easier to tag complex data, thats the entires sence of an preset. If this is your project, please stop at once, and wait until after the vote. Otherwise you will piss off many valuable mappers. I'am glad that *nobody* in a free world can anybody saying what to do and what not to do! And, there in OSM history is any standard? I only know well used key/value pair. -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen Carsten Schönert ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Public transport proposal
Am 13.01.11 21:33, schrieb Michał Borsuk: On 13 January 2011 13:59, André Joost andre+jo...@nurfuerspam.deandre%2bjo...@nurfuerspam.de wrote: Am 13.01.11 13:27, schrieb Richard Fairhurst: Could I have your assurance that the proponents of this proposal will also be providing good-quality patches for the three principal editors (Potlatch, JOSM, Merkaartor), with an easy-to-use interface consistent with the rest of the editor? A preset for josm is already in progress. With what's in the proposal? That's pretty arogant, don't you find? We haven't decided on the final shape yet. Perhaps you should read the wiki: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features - OpenStreetMap does not have any content restrictions on tags that can be assigned to OSM-Elements (Nodes Node, Ways Way or Relations Relation). You can use any tags you like as long as the values are verifiable - I dont fintd that arrogant in any way. greetings, André Joost ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
