On 13-07-16 22:35, Kieron Thwaites wrote:
On 13 July 2016 at 12:57, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
+1. Some people also add a third relation (route master) to group the two
(plus eventual variants).
This should be considered mandatory.
What is also done in the Netherlands is grouping all the r
On 13 July 2016 at 12:57, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> +1. Some people also add a third relation (route master) to group the two
> (plus eventual variants).
This should be considered mandatory.
--K
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 5:57 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> 2016-07-13 8:39 GMT+02:00 Paul Johnson :
>
>> I would advise against this; and instead use a separate relation for each
>> direction of a route as it greatly simplifies maintenance of the route.
>
>
>
>
> +1. Some people also add a t
2016-07-13 8:39 GMT+02:00 Paul Johnson :
> I would advise against this; and instead use a separate relation for each
> direction of a route as it greatly simplifies maintenance of the route.
+1. Some people also add a third relation (route master) to group the two
(plus eventual variants).
Ch
On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 1:08 AM, Hans De Kryger
wrote:
> If i remove the forward/backward tag on a section of a way (part of the
> bus route) does that signify the bus goes both ways?
>
I would advise against this; and instead use a separate relation for each
direction of a route as it greatly s
On Jul 10, 2016 11:28 PM, "Jo" wrote:
>
> Hi Hans,
>
> The semantics depend on public_transport:version.
>
> If 1 then yes.
> If 2 there should be no forward/backward roles anymore.
>
> Instead you add an ordered sequence of ways that is continuous.
>
> If you want a demo of how to map PT, we can
sent from a phone
> Il giorno 11 lug 2016, alle ore 08:26, Jo ha scritto:
>
> If 1 then yes.
> If 2 there should be no forward/backward roles anymore.
>
> Instead you add an ordered sequence of ways that is continuous.
+1, around here we've made good experiences with relations for each dire
sent from a phone
> Il giorno 11 lug 2016, alle ore 09:32, Jo ha scritto:
>
> Since life is too short
If you see it as a generational project this becomes less of an issue, we're
building for our kids ;-)
cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Hi Hans,
Yes, that describes version 2. It's the currently used version, so version
1 route relations should be converted to several version 2 route relations,
one for each variant of the line.
There are a few things I don't agree with on that wiki page, like including
all the stop_positions to e
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Public_Transport#Route
Is version 2?
*Regards,*
*Hans*
On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 11:42 PM, Hans De Kryger
wrote:
> Thanks Jo,
>
> Is there agreement on the forward/backward roles in PT2? By that i mean
> completely phasing them out. Or is it
Thanks Jo,
Is there agreement on the forward/backward roles in PT2? By that i mean
completely phasing them out. Or is it still an open discussion? I won't
add them anymore if the point is to phase them out.
*Regards,*
*Hans*
On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 11:26 PM, Jo wrote:
> Hi Hans,
>
> The sema
Hi Hans,
The semantics depend on public_transport:version.
If 1 then yes.
If 2 there should be no forward/backward roles anymore.
Instead you add an ordered sequence of ways that is continuous.
If you want a demo of how to map PT, we can do a hangout.
Also, have a look at this:
http://www.open
...unless the way is tagged oneway=yes, in which case forward/backward
is redundant
On 2016-07-11 08:08, Hans De Kryger wrote:
> If i remove the forward/backward tag on a section of a way (part of the bus
> route) does that signify the bus goes both ways?
>
> REGARDS,
> HANS
> __
If i remove the forward/backward tag on a section of a way (part of the bus
route) does that signify the bus goes both ways?
*Regards,*
*Hans*
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
14 matches
Mail list logo
