Hi Peter
On 05/02/2011 06:23 PM, Peter Miller wrote:
Thanks, but that doesn't answer how one avoids getting two station names
rendered, one from the node positioned at exactly where one wants it and
which can be used in route relations and another from the centre of the
area?
The idea of the
Hi Peter
On 05/01/2011 10:49 AM, Peter Miller wrote:
Just to say that I have just set Stefan Bethke up as an admin. There are
now two administrators, myself and Stefan which is much better.
I would like to also say how impressed I am with the new public
transport schema which is proving to be
, 2011 at 9:41 AM, Dominik Mahrer (Teddy)te...@teddy.ch wrote:
Hi
Voting is open for public transport proposal:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Public_Transport
Regards
Teddy
___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit
Here we're getting into one of the uglier parts of transport mapping -
large terminals (amenity=bus_station) with multiple stop positions and
platforms. I deliberately left that out of the proposal I presented (my
plan is to present that as a later extension).
Do you have an idea how it will
On 02/07/2011 12:23 AM, Michael von Glasow wrote:
On 02/05/2011 06:09 PM, Richard Mann wrote:
On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 12:32 AM, Michael von Glasow
mich...@vonglasow.com wrote:
if I may just comment on the relation: I would also use stop
rather than forward_stop and backward_stop for the roles
On 02.02.2011 13:04, Michał Borsuk wrote:
Let's just get down to differences, I say your proposal is too
difficult. I've already spoken well about its data integrity, but new
users don't care about it. We need something that is as good as yours in
data integrity, and as easy to grasp as my
On 02/03/2011 12:40 AM, Richard Mann wrote:
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 11:10 PM, Michael von Glasow
mich...@vonglasow.com wrote:
Hence, in most cases the extra node on the way is what I call courtesy
tagging - it makes things easier for the renderer (less preprocessing) but
can be automated. I
On 27.01.2011 22:06, Michael von Glasow wrote:
You can find the proposal at:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Simplified_Public_Transport_Scheme
Constructive feedback and suggestions are welcome and can be sent to the
list or left on the proposal's discussion page.
It
On 26.01.2011 09:28, Michał Borsuk wrote:
Here's an excerpt from the ZVV timetable for Bus 210, uptown Zürich
In Zürich / ZVV there does NOT exist a bus 210.
And the data come from this:
http://www.zvv.ch/en/timetables/online-timetable.html
This is a form. It is no data output. What did
On 26.01.2011 09:20, Michał Borsuk wrote:
1. Tram lines are normally represented by a single line on the map, not
one line per track
This is what you think is correct.
Why don't you accept, that others want and do map more exact and more in
detail then you?
Teddych
On 01/26/2011 08:40 PM, Michał Borsuk wrote:
Line 10 Winterthur:
line# relation# # of runs
10 407 6
10 408 1
10 409 1
10 410 6
10 411 3
10 412 3
10 413 6
10 414 3
10 415 3
10 416 1
10 417 6
10 418 3
10 419 1
10 420 3
10 702 2
10 703 2
Voila, one line, 16 relations (unless
On 01/25/2011 12:01 AM, Michał Borsuk wrote:
So far, so good. Let's then take a tram line, I selected a *random* stop
in the centre of Zürich, and *randomly* took tram line 10. Here's the
list of routes and their conditions:
...
This single line contains *23* different routes! Twenty-three
On 01/22/2011 11:04 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Dominik Mahrer (Teddy) wrote:
IMHO not related to the proposal:
- potlatch can not handle the proposal/nested relations correctly:
The latest version of Potlatch (Potlatch 2) handles nested relations
excellently. About 10 seconds' research
On 01/22/2011 08:38 PM, Michał Borsuk wrote:
On 01/22/2011 09:32 AM, Dominik Mahrer (Teddy) wrote:
- stop_area is not needed/too complicated:
[...]And it does not seam to be too complicated,
And as for not needed: can we have a *separate discussion* on how
routing works? There had already
On 01/24/2011 10:10 AM, Michał Borsuk wrote:
As far as I understand the issue, stop areas are used to tie different
stops into one transferring area.
No, you did not understand correct. stop_area_group is (was?) for that.
Teddych
___
Talk-transit
On 01/24/2011 11:00 AM, Michał Borsuk wrote:
Am 24.01.2011 10:39, schrieb Dominik Mahrer (Teddy):
On 01/24/2011 10:10 AM, Michał Borsuk wrote:
As far as I understand the issue, stop areas are used to tie different
stops into one transferring area.
No, you did not understand correct
On 01/24/2011 07:24 PM, Michał Borsuk wrote:
On 01/24/2011 03:04 PM, Oleksandr Vlasov wrote:
3. bus_stop already defines `ref' tag, will proposed `stop_id' be
something
different?
ref= on a bus stop? That's news to me (sadly). I used stop_id=, but the
mess probably comes from the fact that
I try to seperate the criticism from the spam around my proposal:
- stop_area is not needed/too complicated:
According to taginfo there are already 64'500 stop area relations in the
OSM database (10'500 public transport/oxomoa, 1'500 stop place, 51'500
unified stoparea).
For me this is a
On 12/29/2010 12:30 AM, Richard Mann wrote:
If someone maps a single node on the way and calls it
highway=bus_stop, then that should be OK (but not recommended).
unified_stoparea recommends that. You would allow but not recommend it,
correct?
If someone then wants to put highway=bus_stop
On 12/13/2010 11:35 PM, Richard Mann wrote:
Because sometimes trams just stop in the road, not at anything that
might be described as a platform. The only thing you can see is a pole
(looking remarkably like a bus stop, in fact). You could call them
railway=platform nodes, but it doesn't sound
On 12/13/2010 11:52 AM, Jo wrote:
I like the proposal, the only thing I don't like about it is the massive
duplication of information in the route relations, which will make it
harder to maintain them in the long run. But I see why we would do it
that way. Maybe I'll come up with a proposal for
On 12/13/2010 01:12 PM, Richard Mann wrote:
But this doesn't work well when you have lines that loop at the ends
(fairly common with bus services), because the two relations overlap
(you have to make certain nodes members in both relations, and that
starts crossing a complexity/maintainability
On 12/13/2010 06:26 PM, Albin Michlmayr wrote:
Till now I solved this by defining one stop in the loop as terminus.
This lines then take different routes for each direction. Therefore I
found the solution with single-direction route relations quite
suitable. I don't know if this is the best
On 12/11/2010 03:32 PM, Michał Borsuk wrote:
And by the way: What physical thing is represented by railway=tram_stop?
I don't deal with trams.
So you have a very limited view of Public Transport.
Whenever I criticize Oxomoa I hear the same silly argument: but in my
Siedlung there's a
Hi Richard
There appears to be a degree of consensus on using one type=route
relation per direction (though it's not entirely clear whether this is
really necessary), not worrying overmuch about telescopic routes or
occasional diversions, and (groaning but) creating separate relations
for
Think of a terminal bus station somewhere in the center of a city. Four
bus lines end here. One platform of 50m. The four lines stop always at
the same position (line 1 is first,..., line 4 is last). Only one pole
for all buses. Where do you place your tags? Or how do you tell where to
wait
On 12/10/2010 08:55 PM, Richard Mann wrote:
I would agree that on-highway highway=bus_stop should be phased out
(is anyone saying they should be retained?). I think they're a
hangover from the time before we realised that tagging the pole was a
better approach. In the mean time, I don't think
On 12/11/2010 12:39 AM, Richard Mann wrote:
The English-language discussion appears to have long reached a
consensus (except for you).
The decision to place highway=bus_stop beside the road has been made
before highway=platform existed. Without highway=platform I also would
vote for beside
On 09.12.2010 13:31, Michał Borsuk wrote:
There is the issue of multiple relations per line in oxomoa, which
in my opinion is a total misfit. There are roles in relations, and
different variants of a route can be put there. Two, or more,
relations per line is not only illegal (clearly against
On 12/10/2010 01:45 AM, Richard Mann wrote:
highway=bus_stop on a node next to a road
railway=tram_stop on a node on railway=tram
railway=platform on a node or way or area next to the tram tracks
This is how you are using it.
It is inconsistent.
It is incomplete.
It is historic.
Beside your
Hi,
I want to invite everyone to comment the (in central europe) already
widely used new Public Transport Schema:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Public_Transport
Teddych
___
Talk-transit mailing list
Hi Michael
In the new proposal I am missing some details on how to build relations:
1. Should the outward and return trip be represented as two separate
relations, as a single relation or is that up to the mapper?
Each direction should be in a separate relation. This is written in the
Hello list
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_Inspector provides a similar view
(Public Transport Network) like ÖPVN-Karte.
Teddych
___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
33 matches
Mail list logo
