Re: [Talk-transit] Public transport proposal
Michał Borsuk michal.borsuk at gmail.com writes: This were true if we had 30 editors, but we have three. We have to bend over to those who maintain them. I do value the time and efforts editors' authors invested, and I believe everyone does. Part of the mess is exactly the lack of a sensible and well documented (wiki page!) standard. My aim is to allow semi-beginners to be able to map at least the simplest things. I agree. Will currently discussed proposal be approved or disapproved, wiki should be cleaned up. Obvoiusly, before cleanup the preferred tagging way should be defined. This may be surprising, but in many areas the map is pretty full. In my area almost everything is mapped. If somebody likes editing OSM, they might just as well turn to mapping bus lines, with some help from us. Happy you. I agree that the proposed scheme isn't very easy to map without designated tools; nor established scheme is. Additionally, there's no single established scheme, but lots of variations (in one km distance around me I see bus_stops on the way, bus_stops beside the way, single bus stop on the way put between two actual stops in forward and backward directions, highway=platform points beside the way combined with bus_stops on the way and, finally, `site' relations). If you have another proposal, please come up. I personally do not have any sentimental feelings for the proposed scheme, I just believe it's better than the current situation. ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Public transport proposal
On 01/17/2011 01:36 PM, Oleksandr Vlasov wrote: Michał Borsukmichal.borsukat gmail.com writes: This were true if we had 30 editors, but we have three. We have to bend over to those who maintain them. I do value the time and efforts editors' authors invested, and I believe everyone does. Did you misunderstand me? I had said that since we have three editors, not thirty, then we have to more or less do what the maintainers (coders) of those editors want. We can't come up with just anything, because it may not be implemented. Part of the mess is exactly the lack of a sensible and well documented (wiki page!) standard. My aim is to allow semi-beginners to be able to map at least the simplest things. I agree. Will currently discussed proposal be approved or disapproved, wiki should be cleaned up. Obvoiusly, before cleanup the preferred tagging way should be defined. This is, apparently, already on the way. This may be surprising, but in many areas the map is pretty full. In my area almost everything is mapped. If somebody likes editing OSM, they might just as well turn to mapping bus lines, with some help from us. Happy you. I agree that the proposed scheme isn't very easy to map without designated tools; nor established scheme is. But it's much easier. You will probably agree that the biggest mess is having to go though several pages and examples before one has an idea how to map. If you have another proposal, please come up. I personally do not have any sentimental feelings for the proposed scheme, I just believe it's better than the current situation. Well, not just anything is better than the current mess. I have an idea, that is simply to properly describe what exists*), and I believe ant started cleaning up the wikipages. *) I mean the version with two poles on each side. Greetings, LMB ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Public transport proposal
On 01/14/2011 08:37 AM, André Joost wrote: Am 13.01.11 21:57, schrieb Michał Borsuk: If this is your project, please stop at once, and wait until after the vote. Otherwise you will piss off many valuable mappers. I think you never used josm so far. You're tryng to derail the conversation. This is about ignoring everybody who doesn't agree with the proposal, not about which is my favourite mapper. As a simple mapper, you have the ability to build yourself a preset and use it on your own, and maybe share it with other users. And I would *never* listen to someone who tells me what I should do in the tone you are using currently. This is a very smart argument ad personam to remain arrogant. I demand your response to the arguments I have presented. The tone is, I believe, justified. Again: the actions of the person who is develipong the plugin for a PROPOSAL is nothing but telling all those who disagree we will push the proposal anyway. That is more than arrogant. LMB ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Public transport proposal
Michał Borsuk michal.borsuk at gmail.com writes: Au contraire. Whatever is used, is the law, or is going to become the law. There is no divine being telling us what to do, so your promise of not being obliged to do whatever is worth nothing. because by using something you put the obligation on the community. Nope. If the author doesn't want to implement some feature, he might avoid its implementation. Surely that means his editor won't be used for working with this feature, but that not a problem: still, it can be used for working with all other features. Again, on the contrary. We are introducing laws aimed at attracting beginners. Clearly, the choice of beginners is going to be Potlatch. Hence we are limited by what is available at the moment. And let's not forget the popularity contest. Last time I checked, each of the three editors had an equal share. I agree. However, mapping public transport now is complicated as well, so I personally do not expect beginner to start from public transport. Instead, s/he might (and probably will) start from POIs, since they're very visible and extreme easy to map, or Bing-drawing. ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Public transport proposal
Michał Borsuk michal.borsuk at gmail.com writes: Is it a mere coincidence that the majority which doesn't see a problem is also the majority that supports the proposal? Probably. I, for one, will not be insulted if I'll hear you are developing a plugin for JOSM implementing some other proposal. ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
[Talk-transit] Public Transport Proposal
I've been reading this: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Public_Transpor t which I assume is the correct one to understand these discussions. The key section I believe is: Main Problem with the existing Schema * Inconsistent handling of railway=tram_stop / railway=halt (node on the way) and highway=bus_stop (node beside the way). * highway=bus_stop beside the way causes extra preprocessing for routing software. * No separate tags for stop position and platform / pole. * Insufficient possibility for line variants for bus lines. I don't see the first point as an issue. So they're inconsistent. If they're documented though that isn't a problem. The problem comes when people edit the wiki to try and change the definition to something other than that which is already widely used. Because these wiki changes has caused some debate, particularly about highway=bus_stop, I do like the backwards compatibility of public_transport=platform and public_transport=stop_position as people can use these new tags and still tag highway=bus_stop (either correctly besides the way, or wrongly in the way g) as they prefer. It is a shame that the wiki edits have made such unambiguous tags necessary though. The second point I can't comment on as I've never written routing software. As routing software exists and this proposal isn't (widely) used, it can't be a big issue, and I believe another post in this forum has made a similar point. The third point is only an issue if you feel it necessary to map the stop positions, which as per my comment on the second point I remain to be convinced about. The fourth point seems almost valid to me. While the existing forward/backward/alternate roles for route relations might make rendering the routes simple, I can see that having separate relations for the route from B to A and from A to B *if they are not identical but reversed* could have applications. Whether a route_master relation is necessary or not I am unconvinced about - it feels too much like using relations as categories which isn't what they are for. It may be a bit more work to create the relations originally, and maintain them on an ongoing basis, but some people map individual trees and how often do you need to resurvey those to check they haven't been hit by lightning, killed by disease or just plain felled? Or pubs - how often do you check each of those that yu map hasn't closed down in these financially difficult times? Maintaining the map going forward will be the bigger part of the project. None of the problems listed suggest any need for stop_areas or stop_area_groups, and the proposal indeed shows that the same can be done with appropriate tagging of the objects, or ignoring the stop_area_groups relation existence. So if we discount the stop_area, stop_area_group and route_master relations as unnecessary (sorry, optional), this proposal isn't really that big a change and I don't see why people are getting so upset about it. Ed ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Public transport proposal
Am 14.01.2011 12:29, schrieb Oleksandr Vlasov: Michał Borsukmichal.borsukat gmail.com writes: Au contraire. Whatever is used, is the law, or is going to become the law. There is no divine being telling us what to do, so your promise of not being obliged to do whatever is worth nothing. because by using something you put the obligation on the community. Nope. If the author doesn't want to implement some feature, he might avoid its implementation. Surely that means his editor won't be used for working with this feature, but that not a problem: still, it can be used for working with all other features. This were true if we had 30 editors, but we have three. We have to bend over to those who maintain them. Again, on the contrary. We are introducing laws aimed at attracting beginners. Clearly, the choice of beginners is going to be Potlatch. Hence we are limited by what is available at the moment. And let's not forget the popularity contest. Last time I checked, each of the three editors had an equal share. I agree. However, mapping public transport now is complicated as well, so I personally do not expect beginner to start from public transport. Part of the mess is exactly the lack of a sensible and well documented (wiki page!) standard. My aim is to allow semi-beginners to be able to map at least the simplest things. Instead, s/he might (and probably will) start from POIs, since they're very visible and extreme easy to map, or Bing-drawing. This may be surprising, but in many areas the map is pretty full. In my area almost everything is mapped. If somebody likes editing OSM, they might just as well turn to mapping bus lines, with some help from us. Greetings, -- Best regards, mit freundlichen Grüssen, meilleurs sentiments, Pozdrowienia, Michał Borsuk ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
[Talk-transit] Public transport proposal
Hello all, I note with some alarm the very complex, relation-heavy proposal for mapping simple public transport objects. Could I have your assurance that the proponents of this proposal will also be providing good-quality patches for the three principal editors (Potlatch, JOSM, Merkaartor), with an easy-to-use interface consistent with the rest of the editor? cheers Richard ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Public transport proposal
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: Hello all, I note with some alarm the very complex, relation-heavy proposal for mapping simple public transport objects. We don't appear to have got beyond the is this really necessary question yet. At the moment it's akin to putting access=yes on a highway=residential - true, harmless, and pointless. Richard ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Public transport proposal
Am 13.01.11 13:27, schrieb Richard Fairhurst: Hello all, I note with some alarm the very complex, relation-heavy proposal for mapping simple public transport objects. No need to panic, you don't *have* to use relations. Putting the node for a bus_stop on the correct place (that is where you see the pole) is already a good start for a normal mapper. If possible, add a note=bus no xy as written on the time-table. The rest might be done by other mappers. Could I have your assurance that the proponents of this proposal will also be providing good-quality patches for the three principal editors (Potlatch, JOSM, Merkaartor), with an easy-to-use interface consistent with the rest of the editor? A preset for josm is already in progress. Greetings, André Joost ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Public transport proposal
After reading the complexity of the proposal for something as simple as a bus stop I thought I should stress something that I believe as important: Mappers are precious. There has been some discussion on IRC about this proposal and these are few of the comments: /These proposal-twiddlers completely miss the point about how precious mappers are. I've checked about 2000 bus stops - I would have done about 10 if I had to mangle a relation each time. highway=bus_stop beside the way causes extra preprocessing for routing software. .. so? highway=bus_stop beside the way = easy to map well, any place the node is added is easy. let Intel and AMD worry about the rest the thing about these we must have neat structures for routing software [people] is that _none_ of them have ever written any routing software/ There were no supportive comments. Please remember this is a mapping project, not an IT project. Ease of editing is the key to getting data and without data we are all sunk. -- Cheers, Chris user: chillly ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Public transport proposal
André Joost wrote: No need to panic, you don't *have* to use relations. I'm not panicking as a mapper. As a mapper I have exactly 0.0 interest in mapping bus stops. I'm anxious as an editor (co-)author. If such relations become widespread, they will (without explicit support) appear in editors as unexplained, anonymous, undocumented entries in the standard relations view. Inexperienced mappers will, therefore, break them. At this point people will start ranting XYZ editor breaks public transport relations, BAN XYZ EDITOR!!^%!@£. Believe me, I've seen it countless times before. Potlatch 2 has dedicated editors for route relations and turn-restriction relations. If this proposal is to be adopted (and I concur exactly with Chris Hill's thoughts on its merits, but that's by-the-by), it will need to be supported in a similar way. It is incumbent on those making the proposal to consider how this might be achieved. Saying oh, the editor writers are my coding bitches and will happily spend a weekend of their time supporting my latest idea is not an answer. A preset for josm is already in progress. And Potlatch and Merkaartor? You can't just support your own favourite editor and consider your responsibility absolved. cheers Richard ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Public transport proposal
On 01/13/2011 01:27 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Hello all, I note with some alarm the very complex, relation-heavy proposal for mapping simple public transport objects. Suddenly I am not all alone? Greetings, LMB ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Public transport proposal
Am 13.01.2011 21:33, Michał Borsuk: On 13 January 2011 13:59, André Joost andre+jo...@nurfuerspam.de mailto:andre%2bjo...@nurfuerspam.de wrote: Am 13.01.11 13:27, schrieb Richard Fairhurst: Could I have your assurance that the proponents of this proposal will also be providing good-quality patches for the three principal editors (Potlatch, JOSM, Merkaartor), with an easy-to-use interface consistent with the rest of the editor? A preset for josm is already in progress. With what's in the proposal? That's pretty arogant, don't you find? We haven't decided on the final shape yet. I don't see any arrogance here. Have you used JOSM before? I guess you did so you know that presets must be actively downloaded and enabled by the users hidden in the preferences. Somewhere besides the Doctors in Greece, the OpenPisteMap and the Japanese 50 sounds order presets. A preset could help testing the proposal during daily work and in the daily environment to see if it works like it as envisioned. Still I can't see no arrogance anywhere. And btw I like this do-ocratic part of JOSM just like some well intentioned exchange of ideas. Claudius ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Public transport proposal
Hello Am 13.01.2011 21:57, schrieb Michał Borsuk: Somewhere besides the Doctors in Greece, the OpenPisteMap and the Japanese 50 sounds order presets. A preset could help testing the proposal You must be kidding me. The proposal is in the stage of a DISCUSSION, not even voting! This is simply acting behind the back of the entire community, trying to push the proposal because it has been tested. Where is your problem? No body said This preset is productiv und you must use it *now*! So men working on there own on a preset that whould support that proposal, You talking over all the time that this proposal is to difficult for newbies and beginners and to overbloated. Whith any kind of an preset for JOSM it is easier to tag complex data, thats the entires sence of an preset. If this is your project, please stop at once, and wait until after the vote. Otherwise you will piss off many valuable mappers. I'am glad that *nobody* in a free world can anybody saying what to do and what not to do! And, there in OSM history is any standard? I only know well used key/value pair. -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen Carsten Schönert ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Public transport proposal
Am 13.01.11 21:33, schrieb Michał Borsuk: On 13 January 2011 13:59, André Joost andre+jo...@nurfuerspam.deandre%2bjo...@nurfuerspam.de wrote: Am 13.01.11 13:27, schrieb Richard Fairhurst: Could I have your assurance that the proponents of this proposal will also be providing good-quality patches for the three principal editors (Potlatch, JOSM, Merkaartor), with an easy-to-use interface consistent with the rest of the editor? A preset for josm is already in progress. With what's in the proposal? That's pretty arogant, don't you find? We haven't decided on the final shape yet. Perhaps you should read the wiki: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features - OpenStreetMap does not have any content restrictions on tags that can be assigned to OSM-Elements (Nodes Node, Ways Way or Relations Relation). You can use any tags you like as long as the values are verifiable - I dont fintd that arrogant in any way. greetings, André Joost ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
