On Friday 28 January 2011 09:05:44 Dominik Mahrer (Teddy) wrote: > It seams to me, this proposal is a sipmlified version of my proposal > with the following key features: > > Used well known tags for stops (also possible with mine). > Stop area left away (also possible with mine). > One relation per direction (identical to mine). > Route master left away (also possible with mine). > > So I do not see a real benefit of this proposal...
Most of the opposition against your proposal is probably generated by the presentation. You describe all options in complete detail and then somewere in the paragraph the reader can find whether something is optional or not. (Plus most what is now optional was not optional in your initial proposal.) This makes it difficult to read for people who want to know how to map the simple cases. Compare this to how the Karlsruhe Schema [1] for housenumbers was started. First it describes the basics. Then below that it describes the more complex use cases, which are clearly marked optional. Secondly if you first document and try to agree on the basics, then the discussion is not (normally) disturbed by endless discussions about details in the optional stuff. [1] <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/House_numbers/Karlsruhe_Schema> -- m.v.g., Cartinus _______________________________________________ Talk-transit mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
