On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 6:20 AM, Dominik Mahrer (Teddy) <[email protected]> wrote: > And again: Why can't you accept, that others want to map something more in > detail then you do?
Can we try and stop this personal stuff, and try to bring things back together? I think we've got three broad decisions: 1) Whether the use of stop area / group relations should be a) widespread b) exceptional I think the consensus is tending towards exceptional-use-only 2) Whether route relations should a) contain all the variants in one relation, with no attempt at ordering, just stops identified as forward/backward b) try to match all the individual stop-sets that you might find in a timetable c) contain an ordered set of ways/stops, in whatever fashion the mapper feels appropriate I'd go for (c) myself, but others might want to be a bit more or less prescriptive 3) Whether there should be a new public_transport key, to try to clarify the bus_stop/tram_stop distinction a) aim to move tram_stops to alongside the track, and put something else (tram_stop_group / tram_station?) on the track b) aim to move bus_stops onto the road, and put something else (platform?) alongside c) encourage the use of platforms on tram systems, and use those in the relation instead of tram_stop d) add a new public_transport key, so that public_transport=platform can be used for everything I'd go for (a) myself. I think (b) won't happen, (c) causes potential issues with using ways in the stop list, and (d) just adds to the complication, since it won't be universally adopted Richard _______________________________________________ Talk-transit mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
