Hi,
I strongly suggest to oppose the proposal. To do so, you need to add
{{vote|no}} --[[User:<Username>|<Name or username>]] date
under the headline == Voting == once voting is opened. Said in short:
Adding more contradictions and confusion in public transport mapping
makes a too complex topic worse in terms of complexity.
In detail, there is a whole bunch of reasons
- The proposal conflicts with well-established mapping rules. The tag
"layer" is explicitly not to use on railway stations, as
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:layer tells:
"Ways in buildings (or similar structures like multilevel parking
lots, shopping centers, airports, railway stations, some
multilevel bridges and roads...) should be mostly described with
level=* instead of layer."
- The proposal conflicts with reality. It requires a tag "colour" on
lines, but not all lines have a defined colour. Making colour required
may lead mappers to add fictitious information.
Other examples where the proposal is at odds with reality is that most
subway platforms in the world are on level -2, some on -3. Also,
stop positions are not necessarily meaningful on networks with varying
train lengths.
- There are already a couple of established mapping instructions, namely
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Simple_Indoor_Tagging
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Public_transport
with details like
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:public_transport%3Dplatform
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OpenRailwayMap/Tagging
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OpenStationMap#Level_of_Details
Hence, yet another standard makes things more complicated.
- The author actively avoids discussion:
The proposal has been announced much later (2017-09-30) than it was
opened (2017-09-23). It has not been announced at all on the relevant
mailing list (talk-transit).
Even on comments on the wiki discussion page, only part of them have
been adressed.
All in all I suggest to retract the proposal and rather write a simple
set of instructions based on the existing wiki pages, with the errors in
this proposal then fixed.
I still do think that Ilya has good intent, and probably the intent was
to have a documentation what maps.me and/or the "validator" recognizes.
But making a wiki proposal is the wrong way to do so, in particular
given that the software still has the mentioned flaws.
Best regards,
Roland
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
