Can I just add, this seems to sum up most of my feelings towards this discussion - if it can be called that.
On 12 December 2010 13:35, Jerry Clough - OSM <[email protected]> wrote: > Odd, this, as I can immediately think of the opposite use case: several > marked bus stops, but the buses stop at random positions over about 100m of > road depending on how many other buses are present. Individual buses serving > the same routes will stop in completely different places (sometimes two or > more buses serving the same route will be present at the stop). > Not sure about this, but it's not the main thrust of the message in my opinion. > > Please stop referring to the current widespread practice of > highway=bus_stop mapped at the pole as 'old': in doing so you are instantly > raising the hackles of those who have spent time on the ground mapping, > rather than writing proposals on the wiki. > Agreed. "Old" implies it has been replaced or is depreciated. That is unhelpful given to my knowledge this is the case neither in theory or (more importantly) in practice. > > For all I know the various discussions and proposals may have some value, > but I find the initial tone off-putting, lacking respect and overly > confrontational. It is not a good route (;-)) to building consensus. By far > and away the best approach is to map a specific area, and show how it really > adds value to the map and to a range of data consumers (not just a pet > public transport router). If it really is better than what exists you'll get > people using it: telling people they're stupid, which is the basic tone of > many messages to this list and discussions on the wiki is less likely to be > successful. > As I implied further up, I don't think discussions is really an appropriate word. Most of the messages seem to be of the "I am right, you are wrong" variety. Hardly a good way to build consensus. ---- David. > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Dominik Mahrer (Teddy) <[email protected]> > *To:* Public transport/transit/shared taxi related topics < > [email protected]> > *Sent:* Fri, 10 December, 2010 15:31:50 > *Subject:* Re: [Talk-transit] Proposed Feature - RFC - Public Transport > > > > Think of a terminal bus station somewhere in the center of a city. Four bus > lines end here. One platform of 50m. The four lines stop always at the same > position (line 1 is first,..., line 4 is last). Only one pole for all buses. > Where do you place your tags? Or how do you tell where to wait for bus > number 4? At the pole that is 40m away from the stop position? > > It is up to you to use a new schema, or not if you dislike. > > I usually do not map already mapped routes/stations again, so I do not have > to drop an original node. But when I map a new station I map stop position > AND platform. > > > On 10.12.2010 14:51, Richard Mann wrote: > > Dominik/Teddy > > > > Please could you explain what situation do highway=bus_stop / > > highway=platform / railway=platform not cover already, that requires > > public_transport=platform to be added to the list? If you're not > > intending to deprecate, then you're just adding complexity. > > highway=platform is for buses/nonrail > railway=platform is for train/tam/rail > What should be used if there are buses and trams at the same station? > > I do not plan to replace existing tags with > highway/railway=public_transport, but I will tag unmapped platforms with > public_transport=platform. If so this can be done with a bot. > > highway=bus_stop is used different. Sometimes as stop position, more often > as platform/pole. See > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:highway%3Dbus_stop#Results_2010-10-27 > The meaning of how highway=bus_stop should be used differ. It can not be > replaced easily with a new public_transport tag. > > > > Also I think you need to make a clearer case for > > public_transport=stopping_position. You claim it's needed for routing > > - but routers currently seem to manage without. > > > > The existing tags can cover the simpler situations (starting with a > > single node, then two or three nodes, then the two nodes become > > platform ways/areas), and still used for the more-complicated > > situations (>2 platforms / bus_stops), just grouped into a relation > > (and at which point you might well drop the original single node). > > > > Richard > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Talk-transit mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit > >
_______________________________________________ Talk-transit mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
