>
> I suggest again: Make the route a separate route relation and include it as
> an optional member of the PTv3 routing relation as proposed. Everybody happy
> (routing lobby AND route lobby), all bases covered including backward
> compatibility.
>
>
Thank you for that suggestion,
New York's largest parks are enormous - the Adirondack Park is about
the same land area as Massachusetts or Belgium, and the Catskill Park
is about of a size with Yosemite National Park. Between the magnitude
and the function, I've had no compunction about tagging both of them
> These "parks" often have identical characteristics to these
tourism=*_site : they sometimes have a common reception desk for
different camp_pitch, toilets, a drinking water point, ...
Many places in the USA are tagged leisure=park when they really ought
to be boundary=protected area, or divided
Hello,
When fixing depreciated tag camp_site=camp_pitch,
I've found several of these in huge parks in the United States.
the current and approved definition of tourism=camp_pitch says that
sites are tourism=camp_site or tourism=caravan_site
however these parks often have identical characteristics
On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 at 13:07, Dave F via Tagging
wrote:
> On 09/03/2020 13:21, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
> > PTv2 is fine for people who want to handle routes that have variants
> > and branches and who want computer validators to be able to spot
> > potential errors in these branches.
>
> I'm
On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 at 11:30, John Doe wrote:
>
> This is quite off-topic, but I can't bear to read more completely
> unfounded criticism of PTv2.
>
> I hereby declare that I find the old tags to be a complete abomination (Is
> it on the way? Is it beside the way? Is it a stop, a platform, a
Hello,
On 20-03-06 11:07, John Doe wrote:
Stereo and I have been working on a schema that makes it easier to create and
maintain public transport route relations. We would like to invite feedback,
questions, and suggestions, so it can mature and hopefully gain widespread use.
As an avid public transportation mapper, I welcome the PTv3. It has all the
features I need, and it will reduce maintenance by a lot.
Janko
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Ptv2 uses a different relation for every possible direction, variant and
whim and rolls them up into a routemaster relation. So you can
theoretically check whether each bit is continuous.
On Mon, 9 Mar 2020, 17:09 Dave F via Tagging,
wrote:
> On 09/03/2020 13:21, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
> >
> >
On 09/03/2020 13:21, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
PTv2 is fine for people who want to handle routes that have variants
and branches and who want computer validators to be able to spot
potential errors in these branches.
I'm intrigued: What Ptv2 tags enable those?
DaveF
On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 at 13:45, Phake Nick wrote:
>
> In PTv2 one can simply select all the ways and then add them into
> relation, unlike this proposal where I woild need to try and see where I
> needs to add waypoint, and identify if there are any way that can be
> rendered differently on
At 2020-03-09 Mon 16:04, John Doe wrote:
>
> Hey, thanks for sharing your views
>
> 07-Mar-2020 03:01:41 Phake Nick :
>
> > [...] for such renderer to work, access restriction for public transit
> vehicle need to be complete, which is rather difficult not just because of
> the work it take or
On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 at 07:29, John Doe wrote:
> This is quite off-topic, but I can't bear to read more completely unfounded
> criticism of PTv2.
highway=bus_stop ("PTv1") is fine for people who survey bus stops and
who want to approximately map a route of a simple bus.
PTv2 is fine for people
I suggest again: Make the route a separate route relation and include it as
an optional member of the PTv3 routing relation as proposed. Everybody
happy (routing lobby AND route lobby), all bases covered including backward
compatibility. Data users, renderers and tools can make up their mind what
On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 at 00:18, Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:
> > editors would have to take similar precautions with nodes. Not
> impossible, but it would take time to appear. Your scheme will be more
> fragile than the existing one, at least for a while.
>
> Well yes, any change will take some work
This is quite off-topic, but I can't bear to read more completely unfounded
criticism of PTv2.
I hereby declare that I find the old tags to be a complete abomination (Is it
on the way? Is it beside the way? Is it a stop, a platform, a halt, a station?
Why is a platform or a bus stop a railway
sent from a phone
> On 9. Mar 2020, at 09:04, John Doe wrote:
>
> What I have in mind is the case of Delhi's NH9, in which a road was changed
> from two to four carriageways. In such a situation, with the constraint of
> the existing stops, routers would have to ignore the new inner
On Sun, 8 Mar 2020, 13:48 Dave F via Tagging,
wrote:
> This proposal by Stereo is nothing really new. Just a alternative to
> routing which has been around since relations were introduced.
> Definitely not 'PTv3'. The 'via' option appears almost as difficult to
> maintain as including ways.
>
>
Hey, thanks for sharing your views
07-Mar-2020 03:01:41 Phake Nick :
> [...] for such renderer to work, access restriction for public transit
> vehicle need to be complete, which is rather difficult not just because of
> the work it take or the current incompleteness of the amount of keys
19 matches
Mail list logo
