The whole point of wanting to move to a simpler tagging scheme is to become able to write simple to understand documentation.
Dropping the "v1" tags that some like to call 'deprecated' is not possible, because then your stops don't render. Replacing highway=bus_stop by public_transport=platform doesn't work either, as you lose the information about the mode of transport, bus=yes/tram=yes. Dropping the public_transport tags on stops seems somewhat more straightforward, but isn't completely either. (For example, I don't like stop_position nodes and won't add them everywhere, but I had started to add them where the itineraries terminate). We're stuck. When PT_Assistant stabilizes and becomes usable with josm_tested.jar, I'll create some videos on what I consider to be "reasonable practices". That will be in about 3 weeks, normally. Polyglot Op di 24 jul. 2018 om 15:56 schreef Leo Gaspard <osm...@leo.gaspard.io>: > My point of view, as a beginner in OSM who still hasn't understood how > PTv1 and PTv2 are supposed to work (and thus didn't read this specific > proposal, take this as generic comments on PT tagging in OSM): > > 1. Beginners are already at a loss, introducing a third (!) tagging > scheme will just make things worse > > 2. If I were developer of an OSM tool, I'd be facepalming as soon as I > saw the word “PTv3” > > 3. What is *really* needed is a clarification of what PTv actually > mean. This is first and foremost a documentation issue, not a tagging > scheme issue. > > 4. If I understood correctly, it's possible to use PTv2 with as few > tags as PTv1, but noone really understands it because the documentation > is such a mess. So I think a proposal of “Clarification of the relative > importance of tags in Public Transportation tagging” would be great. > > 5. Such a proposal would “just” improve the documentation for PTv2 and > erase completely any reference to PTv1 from the wiki (or move it to a > “historic tagging scheme, no longer to be used, but that could be > necessary to understand for consumers until the migration has ended” > section) > > 6. I personally spent at least half an hour (didn't count) trying to > understand how to tag public transportation. After having tried to read > the wiki, I just ragequit. The *documentation* is the issue for public > transport, and adding a third tagging scheme will only make things worse. > > 7. Once the documentation about PTv1 will have vanished and about PTv2 > will be clear (and once the names PTv* will have disappeared to just be > called “PT tagging”, in order to be less frightening for the beginner), > *then* it would be interesting to discuss incremental modifications of > the PT scheme. I guess that's where the changes you're proposing for > “PTv3” (something that I think should not ever happen, would it be just > for its name) would be interesting to integrate. > > 8. For my desiderata about the documentation, I think it should: > 1. Be simple to read > 2. Go from the simplest tagging elements to the most complex. For > example, if I understood correctly PTv2 (ie. likely not), something like: > 1. how to place public_transport=stop_position > 2. how to make a route relation > 3. how to make a master route relation > 4. how to add public_transport=platform for people who feel like > it > 3. Fit in a single page (having to switch back and forth between > dozens of pages for PT is just impossible to do while keeping focus) > 4. Potentially, *at the end, once all important concepts will have > been explained*, link to pages of individual transportation methods > 5. Be written in a didactic style. Currently it's full of “There > was this for a long time, and also that and that, but that is made > possible by PTv2”. BUT WHAT SHOULD I DO? (sorry, that's not to be read > yelling, just my internal thoughts when reading this kind of > paragraphs). That's just not how we can make people do something, that's > just a way to mix up everyone's mind but the minds of people who > actively designed the scheme. > 6. Give instructions as for what to do when the information is > incomplete (eg. I saw a few stops but not the full route, but I've got a > picture of the list of stations, what should I do?) > > Again, these are my 2¢ as a beginner who tried to understand the current > way of tagging PT and just didn't understand it enough to try actually > mapping with it. Also, obviously, I can say how I would want the page to > be, but I can't do it myself because I just didn't manage to understand > in a reasonable amount of time the PT tagging scheme. So I'll have to > rely on you (yes, thou who readeth me) to write it, sorry! > > > On 07/20/2018 10:48 PM, Ilya Zverev wrote: > > Hi folks, > > > > As you might've noticed, in the past year there has been growing > discomfort with the current Public Transport tagging schema. Of course, it > brought order to our route relations, but also introduced a lot of > redundant concepts. We've seen a couple proposals aiming to fix some of > issues, but nothing stuck. > > > > Please consider this new revision for the PT schema, which addresses > most of the issues, while keeping as backward compatible as possible: > > > > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Public_Transport_v3 > > > > I'd be happy to hear any suggestions. Next week, I'll be presenting it, > among other things, during my talk "What's up with the public transport" at > the State of the Map conference. > > > > Thanks, > > Ilya > > _______________________________________________ > > Tagging mailing list > > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging