I'm sorry about removing the video. This time the sound was recorded, but everything remained black. I think I'll start using Hangouts on Air from now on.
If you only want to draw a map of where the buses travel, maybe version 1 of the PT scheme will do. If you want to know how they actually get from one stop to the next, it won't. Those version 1 route relations are also hopeless to do maintenance on. There is no way to check their continuity, so it's not even possible to flag them as 'broken'. They get mapped once and from then on, they start degrading. Now, I won't say that PT v2 is ideal, there is a lot of double work in them, where buses share the same itineraries. My hope is, that at some point, we'll use "super"-relations for them composed of route segments. If you like we can do a hangout where I can demo the current state of the plugin. It would be good to test it on train routes. It's meant to work on all kinds of public transport route relations. This year we'll expand the scope to other route relations, as it doesn't make sense to fix PT and not get warnings for those routes, when they were modified. Coding on the new functionality will only start in June, but this is the second year the plugin is being developed. Jo 2017-05-13 17:15 GMT+02:00 Tijmen Stam <mailingli...@iivq.net>: > On 12-05-17 23:44, Jo wrote: > >> I think what I'm trying to say is: there are many more bus routes (and >> their variations) than train route relations to be mapped. If we insist >> that it has to be: >> >> stop_position >> platform >> >> so double tagging, I think I'll abandon and I'll understand that most >> people will never start mapping public transport as it is effectively >> too complicated. >> > > That would be a shame. > In my view, I have no problem with mapping stop_positions and platforms, > even though the old version (with just the highway=bus_stop) seems to work > fine too. > > I'm working on automating it, during a second GSoC of code project now, >> but that is something that will always remain a burden. Duplication of >> tagging and the apparent need for adding information about stops twice >> to the route relations. >> > > Very interested in that project. > > So my question remains: why can't we have NODES with all the details >> next to the road. These nodes in the route relations and have the >> stop_position, the platform way, the shelter, the waste_basket, the >> bench as extra items that go into a stop_area relation, preferably one >> per direction of travel ? >> > > I have no answer to that. But there's no real necessity to convert to > version 2 except your own drive to do so. IMHO, for most intents and > purposes, a hybrid works just as well. > > > I just spent another hour and 20 minutes converting 1 line from version >> 1 to version 2. The 'simple' way. It might have taken me 2 hours or more >> if everything had needed to be mapped double. >> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_R9cQ73YZp8 >> > > Video removed? > > > My main demotivator in the public transit mapping is, is that our main > renderer (mapnik) won't cope with the public_transport version 2 scheme for > some (seemingly simple) technical reason, i.e. it won't name platforms that > are not a node tagged with highway=bus_stop. > > Tijmen/IIVQ >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
