Hello Peter. On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 08:19:55 +0000, Peter Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > On 7 Mar 2009, at 13:46, Gerrit Lammert wrote: >> 3) have a basic model that suffices 95% of the mappers and 95% of the >> usage scenarios, allow it to be optionally extended (not replaced) by >> more complex data and stuff >> >> Of course, number 3 would be the only feasible solution in my opinion. > > Agreed, I am not proposing a 'full Transmodel' implementation, I > shouldn't think that has ever been achieved in one product or project, > there would be no call to do that and no product would cover > everything from crew rostering to journey planning to operations anyway. > > All I am proposing is that where we want to model something in OSM > that related to transit that we try to use the same term and define is > as being for the same thing as in Transmodel.
Good. I'm just a bit scared, because I don't really understand all this Transmodel and Naptan stuff. In that way, I like to think of myself as the "common mapper". ;-) As such, I wouldn't think its important that the tag names are identically to transmodel, just that we have a clear allocation. I mean, when the Naptan "NapStop" is used on exactly one of the ways the current highway=bus_stop is used, we should keep the old tag for compatibility reasons. Its easy to replace one term with another in Imports and the such. >>> I propose that we create a 'Proposed Transmodel Migration' page to >>> work >>> up what we would need to change to achieve this - based on the >>> unified >>> stop area page, but with a new name. This proposal would then be >>> put to >>> a vote when it is complete, there would not be an assumption that it >>> would happen until we saw how it worked out. >> >> I oppose. >> This should be approached from the OSM side of things with transmodel >> and others in mind. It should NOT be the primary goal to have it all >> made transmodel-like but merely transmodel-compatible. > > I think you are saying that this is a 'tagging review' of OSM transit > tags and that we will use Transmodel for inspiration, rather than > saying we will use Transmodel for everything regardless. Exactly. Probably even more than just inspiration, but lets not redefine OSM to exactly copy Transmodel. > The only issue I have with the current page is that it is has Stop > Area in the title for something that is not a stop area in Transmodel. > If we get rid of that phrase from the title then I will be happy. Can you please explain, what a stop area in Transmodel is? I came up with the proposal before I knew anything about transmodel (still don't really), so I think it is a good sign that there are so many similarities. > So shall we call the new page 'Transit tagging review' or something. > If the proposal is later adopted we will then rename it as 'Transit > tagging'. The page will describe briefly all the transit elements that > we need in OSM (of which there are not actually a lot). Sounds good to me. Gerrit _______________________________________________ Talk-transit mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
