Redundancy is absolute evil only in ideal world with totally full & correct information, infinitely powerful computers and unlimited mappers and developers free time. Descending from heaven to earth, reasonable redundancy
1) gives one more validation point. Say, you have two nearby platforms: one for tram and one for bus, tagged only with pt=platform. It’s very probable the tram platform would be added into a bus route. Without mode=yes on the platforms a validator can’t inform you about this. 2) removes excessive dependency of features. Say, bus stops have only pt=platform in a bus route. If the route is suddenly dropped/mistagged, the information about all the *bus* stops would be lost. Bus stops have the value by themselves; storing their inherent information in other features is wrong (omitting argue whether the information should be represented in the «highway=bus_stop» or «pt=platform + bus=yes» form). As a maintainer of the rapid transit validator http://osm-subway.maps.me <http://osm-subway.maps.me/> I can say it requires «railway=station + station=<mode>» or «railway=station + <mode>=yes» and checks that all stations in a <mode> route would have «mode» tag. Taking this opportunity, I beg you to help with fixing subway networks. Lately they have been being broken faster than usual. BR Alexey (alexey_zakharenkov / azakh-world) > 11 июля 2020 г., в 11:31, Robin Daeneke.at <ro...@daeneke.at> написал(а): > > If the highway=bus_stop tag is also being used, it seems quite redundant to > me. But I would be all for killing that old tag and only using the new p_t > scheme (which sadly was proposed as additional instead of the new norm) and > then it would be useful to have the mode=yes tags, as long as the platform is > not assigned to at least one route relation. As soon as one eg. bus route > contains the platform, the bus=yes is implied and hence redundant. But that > would just be my view. > > (The p_t scheme would need a new, forced version that fixes such required > double taggings, but that is a topic for another time.) > > KR > RobinD (emergency99) > >> Am 11.07.2020 um 07:35 schrieb Agustin Rissoli <aguztin...@gmail.com>: >> >> >> What are your opinion of adding bus=yes along with public_transport=platform >> + highway=bus_stop? >> I can't find info on the wiki that supports this practice, I know it was >> introduced by iD, but I don't see where this has been discussed. >> My question arises because there is only one user who is adding bus=yes (and >> train=yes on railway platforms, etc.), to all stops in Argentina, probably >> correcting the errors that iD marks. >> >> >> Saludos, Agustín. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Talk-transit mailing list >> Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-transit mailing list > Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
_______________________________________________ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
