Re: [Talk-transit] Proposed Feature - 2nd RFC - Public Transport
Am Tue, 11 Jan 2011 20:21:41 +0100 schrieb Michał Borsuk : > On 11 January 2011 18:59, Dominik Mahrer (Teddy) > wrote: > > > I began searching for alternatives and found Oxomoa, unified > > stoparea, stop place and others. All are created because the > > current schema is not able to represent all eventualities. > > It doesn't have to. It is an S-function, reaching 100% costs much > more than reaching 99%. I pretty much came the same way Dominik did. I am also a public transport fanatic. And I like to map small details and it makes me joy to when a bus route crossing a roundabout uses one half of the roundabout in one direction and the other half in the other direction. Till now I had the impression that openstreetmap follows the philosophy "Everybody maps as detailed as he likes". And for enthusiasts it is not only a question of efficency and costs but also of joy, and isn't it because of enthusiasts that openstreetmap exist? If not and if this detailed public transport mapping is not preferred in osm please tell me, then I will find my joy somewhere else. > I am open to change my proposal. I am also open to approve a > completely > > different schema. Michał, please feel free to tell me what to > > change to improve the proposal. To say this proposal has a "bad > > learning curve" may be correct, but it does not help further. > > In another topic. I am looking forward to that! Albin (Almich) ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Proposed Feature - 2nd RFC - Public Transport
Am Tue, 11 Jan 2011 15:15:27 +0100 schrieb André Joost : > Am 11.01.11 15:00, schrieb Michał Borsuk: > > > Questions: > > * What has been achieved by *three *relations that could have not > > been achieved by roles? How faster and easier is managing two/three > > relations than managing a role on the route? > > This role thing is much more complicated than different relations. > Does forward mean the direction of the bus line, or that of the way > element in OSM? *That* is what confuses new users. I totally agree! For me it was a very timeconsuming search when I tried to figure out how to set the role of an element in the route. I found contradicting wiki pages an when I found the Oxomoa scheme with different relations for each direction I thought this is a quite simple solution for the confutision. Albin (User almich) ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Proposed Feature - RFC - Public Transport
Am Mon, 13 Dec 2010 12:12:15 + schrieb Richard Mann : > I think I may have figured out what it is that the established tags > can't do. Yes, I guess you found a quite good summary for the roots of this discussion. > If you've got a railway=tram with a series of nice neat (and > well-established) railway=tram_stop nodes then you can only make that > railway=tram_stop node a member of a route relation once. The oxomoa > conclusion was to have single-direction route relations. > > But this doesn't work well when you have lines that loop at the ends > (fairly common with bus services), because the two relations overlap > (you have to make certain nodes members in both relations, and that > starts crossing a complexity/maintainability threshold). Till now I solved this by defining one stop in the loop as terminus. This lines then take different routes for each direction. Therefore I found the solution with single-direction route relations quite suitable. I don't know if this is the best solution for openstreetmap but I defenately think that there ist missing something in the established scheme. The forward or backward role of a way in the relation is in my opinion useless, because it is not clear if it refers to the direction of the way or the route. Currently it is used in both senses. > I think what we're edging towards is that expressing a tram stop as a > single node isn't really enough. I think the open question is how tram > stop pole nodes should be tagged, whether that affects > highway=bus_stop, and how you deal with joint bus and tram stops. When I first discovered the oxomoa-scheme I thougt that it's quite a good idea to use the new tag "public_transport" because what's the difference between bus and tram stops - there are enough stops used by both means of transport. After following this discussion here I'm not so shure any more because world wide there are already mapped about 66 bus stops as highway=bus_stop and it's senseless to retag all this stops. On the contrary there are also already mapped about 57000 objects as public_transport=* (23000 nodes as stop_position and 22000 nodes and ways as platform) which of course is much less but also too many to retag all these. I don't know which tags are best to be used at the moment but I'm really interested in a broadly accepted guideline for a more unified taging in the future. Regards, Albin ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
