On 2018-04-16 08:11, Philip Barnes wrote:
On 16 April 2018 07:46:13 BST, Jo <[email protected]> wrote:
Anyway, you're right in that the main point of my proposal is to get
people to add 1 object per stop to the route relations.
I think this is a good idea for bus routes as they are quite simple.
There is a sign, the passengers wait thereabouts, the bus stops so the
door is at this point and the passengers can then board, pay or show
their pass to the driver. Making this too complicated will deter
mappers from adding public transport.
If mappers want to add additional information then they should be free
to do so but it should not be compulsory.
To me, this is the crux of the debate. If mappers have put in
additional data or detail that you don't care about, then you should
ignore it rather than remove it (or demand that they do so), because
some other consumer may want that additional data. Ignoring data that
is present but not needed is always easier and more reliable than trying
to deduce data that is needed but not present.
If a consumer doesn't care about stop_position members, it's trivial to
ignore them. If the current spec says they're mandatory, then propose
making them optional; I would support that. I don't support prohibiting
or removing them.
If a consumer only wants a node for the platform but it's mapped as a
way/area, then it's trivial to detect that and compute the centroid. I
don't support replacing existing ways/areas with nodes or prohibiting
new ways/areas in the future. If the current spec says they must be
ways/areas, then propose making nodes allowed too; I thought that was
already the case, but if not, I would support fixing that.
S
--
Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything
CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
K5SSS --Isaac Asimov
_______________________________________________
Talk-transit mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
