2015-07-01 7:38 GMT+02:00 Jo <[email protected]>: > > In retrospect public_transport=platform was a misnomer. Maybe we should > have used public_transport=pole. > A platform can be a pole, or a shelter, or a dock, or a boarding "platform" for a train... It is meant to abstract differences between different means of transport.
Anyway, the attempt to clear up the distinction between mapping stops next > to the road and as a node on the road has failed utterly, now all seems to > be done twice, which is a total waste of time. > The stop_position is where the bus, train, etc. stop on their way, while the platform is where passengers will be waiting to board. Both features are distinct and serve different purposes in real life, so why not store both in OSM ? > My problem is that when I'm adding stops as nodes in Germany and put the > details on there, those nodes get cleared/removed. I can reinstate them, > but it won't stick, so it's futile to do so. > It seems to be more a problem with toxic mappers more than the PT scheme > At some point I thought that starting to include the platform ways to the > background database would help, but that's not the case if the details are > mapped on the stop_position nodes. > In theory, "redundant" details on the same stop should be put in the stop_area relation in order to reduce redundancy. The stop_area relations combine both directions, That's useless. I don't > know who abolished stop_area_group, But what good are these stop_area > relations if they don't help to relate an individual platform with a > stop_position? > See above. Éric
_______________________________________________ Talk-transit mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
