Bus stops should be nodes offset slightly from the way (not nodes on the way).
How relations are handled is partly a problem with the editors. Potlatch 1.4 users (who can't readily order relation members, and who find it a pain having an excess of relations on a way), tend to do 2-way relations, and sometimes even bundle branches into one big relation. JOSM users tend towards doing ordered separate one-way relations, but you do end up with a lot of relations. Lots of relations is probably conceptually less complicated than child relations, so I'd probably go for that, editors-allowing. Richard On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 10:22 PM, Jo <winfi...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'll probably be shot down on sight, but I wanted to be efficient and I > created 'sub'-relations for parts of bus routes that are used by more than > one line. As long as they recurse only one level deep, josm seems to be able > to cope with them. I've been putting the mapping of bus routes off until > child relations were properly supported. > Then I went to have a look at how it all ought to be mapped and all I got > now is a blurred idea of what seems to be ideal (Oxomoa, who thought of > everything) and whether this practice has been accepted, or not. I can't > seem to find out whether I should create a relation for each direction > (which seems cleaner, but duplicates data), or work with forward and > backward constructions in one relation for both directions. > And, of course, I can't find any information on my own 'invention'/crutch: > the use of child relations on parts of bus routes that are shared by more > than 4 bus lines. This would greatly reduce the time I have to put in to > maintain these relations, although it does add some complexity. > I'm reading that the developers didn't mean for relations to be nested in > one another, but why did they give us the possibility to create child > relations, then, in the first place? > I tend to like the use of relations to group data about a bus stop and to > group bus stops together, as well. It's unfortunate that the tag remains > HIGHWAY=bus_stop though, since it's not part of the highway, after all. This > has always felt awkward to me, since I could only tag such bus stops on one > way roads, as I wanted to indicate on what side of the road the stop > actually was. Besides, here in Belgium each stop has a unique ref number, > which is different on each side of the road. We should have come up with a > better tag like public_transportation=bus_stop in the first place. > All that to say, that I, now, still don't know how to tag bus_stops and > quays and stopping positions, etc. > Jo > _______________________________________________ > 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
