On 01/27/2011 06:56 PM, ant wrote:
Hi,
On 27.01.2011 10:49, Richard Mann wrote:
Thanks, Richard.
I think we've got three broad decisions:
1) Whether the use of stop area / group relations should be
a) widespread
b) exceptional
b
b, ideally with a definition to what cases those exceptions are.
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?)
a or b
For ring or spoon-shaped lines, select an arbitrary terminus/termini.
IMHO It's easier to do an exception for the occasional ring line, than
enforce more difficult data structures on mappers (although I personally
dislike roles, and would love to see them improved).
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!)
c. with pole *or* platform. Ideally there would be some degree of
compatibility between tram stops and bus stops, i.e. a pair of tags on
each side that are at least compatible to a degree.
cheers
ant
Greetings,
LMB
_______________________________________________
Talk-transit mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
