The discussion/argument needs to be had anyway, so that is not a bad thing.
I also liked that public transport is in its own namespace now. To keep things simple it's probably a good thing that we don't have a separate public_transport=pole or public_transport=flag. I don't mark all the stop positions. To me they are less important, than were the stop is. To keep things managable and verifyable, I also don't tag where the pole is, but rather where the letter B from the word B U S is written, which can be verified easily from the aerial pictures. Failing that I use one corner of the shelter (where the flag usually sits anyway). Many of our bus and trams stops are shared between trams and buses anyway, so it doesn't make a lot of sense to distinguish between them. And when there is a dedicated platform next to a tramrail, it's obvious it's a tram stop. If we ever get to the point where routes can be composed of subroutes (which are shared among several routes, reducing the number of route relations a highway needs to be a member of), that's when public_transport=stop_position will become interesting, but then I'll also start splitting the highways/railways at those points... Polyglot 2012/11/17 Ed Loach <e...@loach.me.uk> > > I'd rather deprecate platform for busses if anything. > > One of the problems with the bus stop tag, and hoping I don't reopen > old arguments, is that due to a mistranslation in the wiki in the > dim and distant past many people have tagged bus stops as nodes on > the way where the bus stops, when they are meant to be nodes beside > the way where people wait for the bus. The public_transport tags at > least clearly separate the place people wait (using the word > platform) from where the vehicle stops. > > Ed > > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk >
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
