Am 27.01.2011 18:56, schrieb ant: > Hi, > > On 27.01.2011 10:49, Richard Mann wrote: >> I think we've got three broad decisions: >> >> 1) Whether the use of stop area / group relations should be >> a) widespread >> b) exceptional > > b
a) possibility to micromap. >> 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 > > b (by the way: how would (a) work in the case of a ring line?) c) with b) prefered >> 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 > > c and d (we shouldn't redefine tags that are in million-times use!) why not use public_transport=stop_position and platform from OXAMA cheers _______________________________________________ Talk-transit mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
