Re: [Tagging] route/forward/backward members in all types of routes

When traveling over road infrastructure, it's extremely unlikely that a PT route would go over a single way. With rail infrastructure the probability is a little bit higher, but those don't have hail and ride. So I don't think it's really an issue. How are we going to jump start the hail_and_ride

Re: [Tagging] route/forward/backward members in all types of routes

On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 8:00 AM, Fernando Trebien wrote: > That's true. It works in my case, but there might be a rare real > scenario (such as in those hail and ride services) where this would > not be the case. In such scenario, applications might not be able to >

Re: [Tagging] route/forward/backward members in all types of routes

On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 11:58 PM, Andrew Davidson wrote: > This thread is getting quite long. To recap, the problem is that if your > PTv2 route consists of only one way there is no way to tell in which > direction it runs without providing more information. I apologized

Re: [Tagging] route/forward/backward members in all types of routes

On 11-Jan-18 12:58 PM, Andrew Davidson wrote: On 11/01/18 06:30, Tijmen Stam wrote: On 10-01-18 11:37, Andrew Davidson wrote: Yeap, that would be an edge case. Guess no-one thought that you could have an entire route that is only one way. I don't see why this is a problem. This thread

Re: [Tagging] route/forward/backward members in all types of routes

On 11/01/18 06:30, Tijmen Stam wrote: On 10-01-18 11:37, Andrew Davidson wrote: Yeap, that would be an edge case. Guess no-one thought that you could have an entire route that is only one way. I don't see why this is a problem. This thread is getting quite long. To recap, the problem is

Re: [Tagging] route/forward/backward members in all types of routes

I like the hail_and_ride tag for route and route_master relations and the hail_and_ride role for segments of the route where it applies (so as a role for the ways). So this is ready to vote upon, as far as I'm concerned. Polyglot 2018-01-10 19:20 GMT+01:00 Fernando Trebien

Re: [Tagging] route/forward/backward members in all types of routes

Of course that could/should be mapped. Le 10. 01. 18 à 18:47, Jo a écrit : > but you would still have a sequence of connected ways and hence the > order in which to follow them would be clear. I can understand one can > hail anywhere, but the starting point and last stop can still be mapped, >

Re: [Tagging] route/forward/backward members in all types of routes

Thanks. Following your link, I found some discussion on this already: * https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Differentiation_for_routes_of_public_transport#stopping_pattern_values *

Re: [Tagging] route/forward/backward members in all types of routes

but you would still have a sequence of connected ways and hence the order in which to follow them would be clear. I can understand one can hail anywhere, but the starting point and last stop can still be mapped, or not? 2018-01-10 17:53 GMT+01:00 marc marc : > Le 10.

Re: [Tagging] route/forward/backward members in all types of routes

Le 10. 01. 18 à 17:11, Fernando Trebien a écrit : > Since you brought this up, where I live there is a bus network for > which people can hail anywhere. maybe suggest a stopping_pattern=everywhere https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Differentiation_for_routes_of_public_transport

Re: [Tagging] route/forward/backward members in all types of routes

Since you brought this up, where I live there is a bus network for which people can hail anywhere. Mostly. There are some parts of town, such as in downtown, in which there are specific stops for this service. In most areas it is completely at the passengers' will. This network coexists with

Re: [Tagging] route/forward/backward members in all types of routes

sent from a phone > On 10. Jan 2018, at 13:00, Georg Feddern wrote: > > I am quite sure that in _reality_ a stop _or_ a platform is mandatory in a > public transport route - otherwise you would just have a route with > 'hitchhiking'? yes, you could have a fix route

Re: [Tagging] route/forward/backward members in all types of routes

On 10/01/2018 12:00, Georg Feddern wrote: I am quite sure that in _reality_ a stop _or_ a platform is mandatory in a public transport route - otherwise you would just have a route with 'hitchhiking'? In the real world, that happens.  As well as public transport routes with _only_ the route

Re: [Tagging] route/forward/backward members in all types of routes

Am 10.01.2018 um 12:32 schrieb Ilya Zverev: Selfish Seahorse wrote: The course of the route is determined by the order of the stops in the route relation. Therefore forward/backward roles would be redundant. But stops are not mandatory in public transport routes, unlike highways/railways! I

Re: [Tagging] route/forward/backward members in all types of routes

Selfish Seahorse wrote: > The course of the route is determined by the order of the stops in the > route relation. Therefore forward/backward roles would be redundant. But stops are not mandatory in public transport routes, unlike highways/railways! Ilya

Re: [Tagging] route/forward/backward members in all types of routes

Le 09. 01. 18 à 23:29, Fernando Trebien a écrit : > Verdy_p in the wiki though presents a scenario Philippe loves to complicate situations to the point of rendering them unusable. > difficult to know when passengers can really aboard/alight at a stop. > If one goes from points A to B to C to

Re: [Tagging] route/forward/backward members in all types of routes

Yes, I just found that out. So I apologize for the spamming here. Verdy_p in the wiki though presents a scenario in which it would be difficult to know when passengers can really aboard/alight at a stop. If one goes from points A to B to C to D, then back to C, and passengers can only

Re: [Tagging] route/forward/backward members in all types of routes

On 9 January 2018 at 19:57, Fernando Trebien wrote: > I was about to fix a mistake I caused in the map due to these > contradictions in the wiki, then I found a problematic case [1]. > > According to PTv2, this route needs to be broken into two, one per > direction,

Re: [Tagging] route/forward/backward members in all types of routes

Even though the reply was in the wiki and not here, I think this should be considered by those interested in the problem: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Public_Transport#route.2Fforward.2Fbackward_and_special_scenarios On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 5:41 PM, Fernando Trebien

Re: [Tagging] route/forward/backward members in all types of routes

Well, I should probably start a separate topic on this, but where I live most bus terminals have no name and the public administration reports general descriptive directions (such as "downtown" and "suburb"). Does that mean that from and to should be blank on those relations? Or should the local

Re: [Tagging] route/forward/backward members in all types of routes

app can use from+to to choice with relation to use in each direction. of course de from match the first stop, and to the last stop. I don't understand what's the problem. NB: roundtrip=yes mean a circular route, it's not the case of ours. Le 09. 01. 18 à 19:57, Fernando Trebien a écrit : > I was

Re: [Tagging] route/forward/backward members in all types of routes

I was about to fix a mistake I caused in the map due to these contradictions in the wiki, then I found a problematic case [1]. According to PTv2, this route needs to be broken into two, one per direction, and a route_master relation must be created for them. Without the forward/backward roles, I

Re: [Tagging] route/forward/backward members in all types of routes

It seems like other people have faced this problem before [1]. The link provided by JOSM developers refers to the text in the proposal, not to the main article [3] nor the more specific route type articles. [1] https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/13768 [2]

Re: [Tagging] route/forward/backward members in all types of routes

On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 11:13 AM, Tijmen Stam wrote: > In PTv2 only a few roles are acceptable: stop and platform (and the > equivalents stop_exit_only and stop_entry_only) for stops and platforms, > and _no role_ for the ways in the route. In that case, the article on

Re: [Tagging] route/forward/backward members in all types of routes

> Very well. It seems to me that a role such as "route" in PTv1 exists > only for clarity, as it would be equivalent to an empty role. Could we > say that "forward" also can be optionally added in PTv2 for clarity? No. The forward/backward is not relative to the direction of the _route_, but

Re: [Tagging] route/forward/backward members in all types of routes

Very well. It seems to me that a role such as "route" in PTv1 exists only for clarity, as it would be equivalent to an empty role. Could we say that "forward" also can be optionally added in PTv2 for clarity? On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 9:34 AM, marc marc wrote: > in PTv1,

Re: [Tagging] route/forward/backward members in all types of routes

in PTv1, one relation is used for all forward and backward route. therefore ways that is in use only in one-way route must have forward/backward role. in PTv2, the previous relation is splited in 2 relations. one with all ways used in forward, another with all way used in backward (and we

Re: [Tagging] route/forward/backward members in all types of routes

The article on route relations [1] doesn't make any distinction between PT versions regarding those member roles. If the answer would be different in each case, then I'd like to make the difference explicit in the wiki, at least while PTv1 is still acceptable (probably for a long time). On Mon,

Re: [Tagging] route/forward/backward members in all types of routes

Are we talking about the PTv1 or the PTv2 schema here? On 09/01/18 08:50, Fernando Trebien wrote: Hello, A user recently questioned me about adding members with role "forward" to subway routes in my area. It is my understanding that, if the route runs in a single direction, this is allowed and

[Tagging] route/forward/backward members in all types of routes

Hello, A user recently questioned me about adding members with role "forward" to subway routes in my area. It is my understanding that, if the route runs in a single direction, this is allowed and desirable [1]. However, specific articles [2][3] on different types of railways seem to suggest that