On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 8:32 AM, Dominik Mahrer (Teddy) <te...@teddy.ch> wrote: > How would you > handle existing routes, only containing the stop_positions > (railway=tram_stop)? Removing stop positions and adding the platform/pole?
Leave them as they are. Or add platforms or highway=tram_stop nodes and put them in the relation instead of the railway=tram-stop nodes. > So you would deprecate railway=tram_stop as the stop position? railway=tram_stop remains useful for rendering (it functions not as a "stop-position" but as the centroid of the stop area) > My proposal therefore would add both (stop > position and platform) [to the relation]. On this we do not have agreement. I would add platforms (or railway=tram_stop as a proxy for a platform). But not stop-positions. > But what would you suggest to use as the stop_position for bus stops, if you > would have to decide? I would expect data users to infer it from the position of the bus stop. Logically, you could mark a node for the stop_position between the bus-stop and the way (or even on the way if the stop_position blocks all traffic on the way). But this is pretty pointless - data users will probably ignore them anyway, and infer it from the bus stop location. Richard _______________________________________________ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
