Re: [Talk-transit] child relations in type=route, route=bus
I have no idea whether Potlatch can or can't. I've been waiting almost 2 years and now that I found the possiblity to work with child relations in JOSM, I decided to to a little experiment with them. In the mean time, I'm not entirely convinced it's the best way to go anymore. On the one hand there is something to say for it, since so many bus lines are using the parts of the same routes, but I'm pretty sure that if one gets the PT companies to share their data, it's not going to be in there with child relations. So I'll probably be deleting them once again, soon. Jo 2010/9/29 Michał Borsuk michal.bor...@gmail.com On 29 September 2010 10:31, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com wrote: Lots of relations is probably conceptually less complicated than child relations, so I'd probably go for that, editors-allowing. Can one deal with this in Potlatch, which is the entry-level editor for most mappers, and common editor for 1/3 of all users? (Mind you, there are things Potlatch can do that are hardly possible in Josm or Merkaartor) -- Best regards, mit freundlichen Grüssen, meilleurs sentiments, Pozdrowienia, Michał Borsuk ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] child relations in type=route, route=bus
2010/10/1 Jo winfi...@gmail.com [...] I'm pretty sure that if one gets the PT companies to share their data, it's not going to be in there with child relations. Usually (e.g. HaFas) timetables consist of a number of routes, and those are very detailed, each direction is mapped separately, and e.g. if a bus ends its day not at the terminus, then it's yet another route. This approach is easier to store in a database, but is in my opinion that one step too detailed for humans to manage in OSM. It would apparently make sense to make a collection named line 123, and store child routes withing that collection, but as of today there is no efficient way to deal with this. -- Best regards, mit freundlichen Grüssen, meilleurs sentiments, Pozdrowienia, Michał Borsuk ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] child relations in type=route, route=bus
On 28 September 2010 23:22, Jo winfi...@gmail.com wrote: I created 'sub'-relations for parts of bus routes that are used by more than one line. I suggest to finally solve the problem this way: we need to insert a new logical layer between what we map, and what is displayed. This logical layer would then take your mother relation plus any child relations (or roles), and make n versions of the mapped bus line out of this. That also solves the problem of one vs two relations (in each direction) per bus line. I am against it because it would be hell to manage, and in Europe, where one way streets are are, quite an overkill (because it's rarely needed, mostly around termini). This could be solved by child relations/roles as well, but only for sections where the routes forwards and backwards don't match. -- Best regards, mit freundlichen Grüssen, meilleurs sentiments, Pozdrowienia, Michał Borsuk ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] child relations in type=route, route=bus
Bus stops should be nodes offset slightly from the way (not nodes on the way). How relations are handled is partly a problem with the editors. Potlatch 1.4 users (who can't readily order relation members, and who find it a pain having an excess of relations on a way), tend to do 2-way relations, and sometimes even bundle branches into one big relation. JOSM users tend towards doing ordered separate one-way relations, but you do end up with a lot of relations. Lots of relations is probably conceptually less complicated than child relations, so I'd probably go for that, editors-allowing. Richard On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 10:22 PM, Jo winfi...@gmail.com wrote: I'll probably be shot down on sight, but I wanted to be efficient and I created 'sub'-relations for parts of bus routes that are used by more than one line. As long as they recurse only one level deep, josm seems to be able to cope with them. I've been putting the mapping of bus routes off until child relations were properly supported. Then I went to have a look at how it all ought to be mapped and all I got now is a blurred idea of what seems to be ideal (Oxomoa, who thought of everything) and whether this practice has been accepted, or not. I can't seem to find out whether I should create a relation for each direction (which seems cleaner, but duplicates data), or work with forward and backward constructions in one relation for both directions. And, of course, I can't find any information on my own 'invention'/crutch: the use of child relations on parts of bus routes that are shared by more than 4 bus lines. This would greatly reduce the time I have to put in to maintain these relations, although it does add some complexity. I'm reading that the developers didn't mean for relations to be nested in one another, but why did they give us the possibility to create child relations, then, in the first place? I tend to like the use of relations to group data about a bus stop and to group bus stops together, as well. It's unfortunate that the tag remains HIGHWAY=bus_stop though, since it's not part of the highway, after all. This has always felt awkward to me, since I could only tag such bus stops on one way roads, as I wanted to indicate on what side of the road the stop actually was. Besides, here in Belgium each stop has a unique ref number, which is different on each side of the road. We should have come up with a better tag like public_transportation=bus_stop in the first place. All that to say, that I, now, still don't know how to tag bus_stops and quays and stopping positions, etc. Jo ___ 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] child relations in type=route, route=bus
On 29 September 2010 10:31, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com wrote: Lots of relations is probably conceptually less complicated than child relations, so I'd probably go for that, editors-allowing. Can one deal with this in Potlatch, which is the entry-level editor for most mappers, and common editor for 1/3 of all users? (Mind you, there are things Potlatch can do that are hardly possible in Josm or Merkaartor) -- Best regards, mit freundlichen Grüssen, meilleurs sentiments, Pozdrowienia, Michał Borsuk ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
