Eric
I think you are falling into the trap of trying to cover too many things in one relationship. A stoparea to me as a public transport person is (defined functionally) a cluster of stoppoints at which it is possible to interchange between services – and as such it is also a collection of stops for which a single stop name can be shared (in the UK we then have a separate “indicator” to allow you to make the naming of each stoppoint unique within the stoparea. If ramps or other accessibility features are relevant then they should be coded as a separate parameter (attached to the route which can be walked between such stops) – likewise if a light-controlled crossing with audible signals exists, then that too is a separately coded feature. I am not sufficiently familiar with this in the context of mapping to know how best to advise these points are handled in a mapping context. To me it is better that the mapping focuses on the topographic features (including paths and equipment) and then service information can be overlaid from a public transport information system. Best wishes Roger From: Éric Gillet [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 02 July 2015 15:12 To: Public transport/transit/shared taxi related topics Subject: Re: [Talk-transit] different interpretations of v2 PT scheme 2015-07-02 15:52 GMT+02:00 Janko Mihelić <[email protected]>: If you are adding stop_areas, then there certainly have to be two of them, one on each side. One of them is put in the route that goes one way, the other one is put in the other way. I'm also pretty sure that the stop_area_group is not needed. If they are near each other, then it's a group. But to someone "near each other" means within 400m, to someone in a wheelchair it means ramps, to a blind person it means traffic lights with sound. What else can a group achieve that spatial placement can't? Maybe if a group has a ref. Aggregate data to reduce duplication, and provide strong and explicit links betweens features. After all this, I'm not sure that stop_area is absolutely necessary. Stop_position and platform are nearby, so there is really not that much chance an algorithm is going to connect the wrong ones. If it was me, I would just add all the refs to the platform, like you did, and ignore all the refs on the stop_position. Job done, no relations needed. In a mutlimodal hub (rail,buses, etc.) that could easily be the case. Anyway explicit is most often better than implicit.
_______________________________________________ Talk-transit mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
