On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 08:54:48AM +0100, Roger Slevin wrote: > What has not been mentioned specifically in this thread (although I know > Peter is very much aware of it) is that there is an approved European > Technical Specification (Identification of Fixed Objects in Public Transport > - IFOPT) that has built on the experience of NaPTAN and other related work > to date, and covers the same ground. A colleague is putting together some > comments on how the German work relates to IFOPT. Early indications are > that the matching of fundamentals is good (as might be expected - given that > NaPTAN was a key input to IFOPT) ... but I hope something on this will be > posted here in the next few days.
Lets not forget that this is OSM. We do things step by step here with lots of experimentation. Its more about evolving to a good model than creating some complex top-down design. The scheme under discussion is one such step. Its not as complex as IFOPT and probably can't do all that IFOPT can do, but it is reasonably similar to the current OSM model yet more clear and powerful while still beeing understandable. A complex model created by professionals for professionals is sure to fail in OSM. In the long run we can work more and more towards this complex model when the software supporthas improved and we understand better what we want and what we need. But for now we should try to cram everything in. IFOPT seems for instance to allow full recursion on many of its objects which is really hard to handle properly and has, in my opinion, currently no place in OSM. Of course where there are good ideas we should incorporate them. Especially when naming things it makes sense to follow established practices here. Jochen -- Jochen Topf [email protected] http://www.remote.org/jochen/ +49-721-388298 _______________________________________________ Talk-transit mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
