On 28 Sep 2009, at 14:58, Frankie Roberto wrote:
Jerry wrote:
I've just noticed that the relations for stop places generated in
the NaPTAN import do not have a type. I just happened to be browsing
through some KeepRight issues and noticed a number of relation
without type ones.
I think the consensus is that these should become type=site. This
can be made more specific by either using site=* (eg
site=railway_station) and/or traditional tags like railway=station
and amenity=bus_station.
Firstly I suggest we stick with Stop Area and not use Stop Place. Stop
Place is more correct from a CEN standards perspective but Stop Area
is very much adopted.
I think the site approach makes a lot of sense and it would be
straightforward to migrate to this over time.
Peter Miller wrote:
I noticed yesterday that the public transport article[1] is still
linking to 'User:Oxomoa/Public transport schema' article for tagging
information even though this is a personal page and therefore not
something that others should touch.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Tirkon seems to have moved
the content from "Public transport" into "Public Transport", which
was a pre-existing page that linked to Oxomoa's proposal. I'm
guessing that this is to better link it to the DE:Public Transport
page. I can't remember what we decided about capitalisation
conventions (I think we'd said it was worth following the Wikipedia-
like "Public transport" style), so it might be worth reversing these
redirects.
The guidelines page recommends using Wikipedia convention. He also
broke a number of redirects which are now double redirects. Can I
suggest you 'propose' a move back and that you put your reasons on the
talk page to avoid a wiki-war. It would have been polite for the
person to have proposed the move in the first place of course.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Wiki_guidelines
I have developed a Stop Area article[2] based on Oxomoa's proposal
and which also included feedback from CEN. It is currently available
as a 'proposed feature'. however it should in general echo current
practice. Would it be appropriate to now move it into the main name-
space and use it as the primary overview article for stations, bus
stops etc?
I've been trying to slowly copy some of ideas from your proposal
(and other conventions in use) into the Public transport page, and
the various mode pages (eg Railways), as well as creating tag-
specific pages where appropriate (eg Tag:route=railway). I think
this is probably a better approach than trying to have one uber-
proposal.
To be clear, it is only a proposal for Stop Areas, not for everything
to do with public transport, but it could also sit in the relevant
articles and fade away over time. I do however think it is useful to
have a simple table giving the tags for an 'access' for each transport
mode. The discussion sections would of course all be moved to the talk
page so the article itself would shrink a lot.
If so should we just do it or do a formal vote first. Given that it
is actually now a summary of current practice I would recommend
moving it without voting but would be happy to follow the majority
view. Thoughts please!
Agreed we don't need a vote. Community consensus, and working
examples, are much more important.
Possibly we move it from proposals to the main section and then
consider what it's future will be. I would however suggest that we
discourage any links to the 'old' proposals, including
unified_stop_area and Oxomoa's proposal except for historical
background. Possibly we need to get the Germans on board for this
since they seem keen on linking to Oxomoa's proposal.
Regards,
Peter
Frankie
--
Frankie Roberto
Experience Designer, Rattle
0114 2706977
http://www.rattlecentral.com
_______________________________________________
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
