On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 4:07 PM, ant <antof...@gmail.com> wrote: > So the point of stop area relations is to prepare the data to be interpreted > as > a network and thus to make routing... easy.
Stop areas are about linking the stop (notionally on the footway) to the road. Or they are about linking platforms with the same name. You can do that as you go along. The stopping_position and stop_area relation are just clutter. If you know the latlons of two stop areas, you can work out how to get between them by running your pedestrian routing algorithm. Marking footways between stops (other than the ones you can assume are adjacent to any roads not marked with footway=no) is more useful than linking the stop areas into a group and implying there is free access between any stop area within it. Basically you use relations to link objects which have a geographical relationship - not just a geographical proximity. There's sense in adding "group" objects if data relates to the group (eg to a station and not to it's individual platforms), but I'd find a convenient node or area to hold the info, not put it on an unnecessary relation. And if the information is relatively simple (eg a name), I'd settle for putting it on all the nodes, rather than create an artificial single object to hold it. Richard _______________________________________________ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
