This is great! Can you expand it to modes besides subway?
S
> On May 29, 2019, at 10:35, Alexey Zakharenkov via Talk-transit
> wrote:
>
> Hello everybody!
>
> I'm a part of team who worries about public transport status in OSM database,
> especially rapid transit transport. I want to
On 2019-05-03 12:09, Dave F via Talk-transit wrote:
On 30/04/2019 18:34, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
A platform is where people wait to board; if they stand at a pole
(typical for buses), then the pole is logically the platform.
This reinforces my point about misappropriation of tags. A platform
On 2019-04-30 05:50, Dave F via Talk-transit wrote:
On 29/04/2019 19:39, Markus wrote:
On Mon, 29 Apr 2019 at 17:18, Stephen Sprunk
wrote:
Part of what seems to have started the PTv2 mess is that bus stops
were
sometimes mapped on the way and sometimes beside the way, and both
cases
were
.
If an entrance serves a subset of platforms (i.e. you might have to
leave and re-enter via a different door to change trains), then it might
make sense in a stop area, but otherwise, it's just part of the station.
S
--
Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything
CCIE
mode-neutral tags (probably so routers would work regardless of mode)
when mode-specific tags already existed.
Is public_transport=platform required at all on bus stops? As with
railways, use existing tags.
Agreed.
S
--
Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everythi
y:colour
>
> Thanks in advance!
> Héctor
> ___
> Talk-transit mailing list
> Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
--
Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything
C
The current four service values are based on physical characteristics of the track that are easily observed on the ground and unlikely to change.This proposal seems to overload that with an indication of how the track is used, and we already have a tag for that: usage. Granted, none of its
by mail.de [1] - MEHR SICHERHEIT, SERIOSITÄT UND KOMFORT
> ___
> Talk-transit mailing list
> Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
--
Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know
> ___________
> Talk-transit mailing list
> Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.
t;>
>> ___
>> Talk-transit mailing list
>> Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit [1]
>
> ___
> Talk-transit mailing list
> Talk-trans
nodes or prohibiting
new ways/areas in the future. If the current spec says they must be
ways/areas, then propose making nodes allowed too; I thought that was
already the case, but if not, I would support fixing that.
S
--
Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything
...@gmail.com]
Sent: fredag 19. januar 2018 04.12
To: talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-transit] Uploading public transport data on OSM
On 19/01/18 01:32, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Agreed; ref:gtfs just won't work, and ref:OPER probably would.
I had always thought that ref was the public
ce the ref tag a few years ago, already.
>
> Polyglot
>
> 2018-01-16 22:07 GMT+01:00 Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org>:
>
>> AFAIK, the operator ID is only guaranteed to be unique within a single GTFS
>> feed, but it's reasonably safe to assume they'll also be uniq
for a region?
>
> Adding a ref:gtfs tag would not be very hard to do, but I would prefer a
> scheme with ref:OPERATOR, because some stops may be served by multiple
> operators and thus be present in multiple GTFS feeds.
>
> Polyglot
>
> 2018-01-16 21:07 GMT+01:00 Stephen S
FS data into OSM
and/or match the two together, rather than OSM data into GTFS. Since
GTFS already has ID numbers for each entity and OSM is free tagging, the
former are fairly straightforward, whereas the (current) policy of not
putting schedule data in OSM makes that latte
elp with routes going against one way traffic flows.
It's called PT_assistant.
I'm happy to help test if it provides functionality that's useful.
S
--
Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything
CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those
stop positions. I've been trying to figure out what
to do on that front myself; so far I've simply left everything but the
station itself unnamed because otherwise the current rendering output is
unusable except at the highest zoom levels. And that's for far simpler
cases than what you describe,
On 2016-06-21 15:12, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 2:02 PM, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org>
wrote:
I found a couple transit-specific apps, but they refuse to work until
I'm within some minimum distance of a stop. ...
RideSystems (and yes, I'm calling them out on this,
On 2016-06-21 00:27, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 10:51 PM, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org>
wrote:
On 2016-06-20 16:18, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 2:02 PM, Stephen Sprunk
<step...@sprunk.org>
wrote:
The situation with GTFS data itself is so bad
On 2016-06-20 16:18, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 2:02 PM, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org>
wrote:
On 2016-06-20 02:07, Roland Olbricht wrote:
There had been a group that was very vocal for making a textbook
example of design by committee, and the result is now
tested. We need an
algorithm to do the right thing in 95% or better 99% of all places
around the world.
Of course. Transmodel tries to be right 100% of the time, but that
means ridiculous complexity; GTFS isn't right quite as often, but it
seems to be good enough for the vast majority of places and
21 matches
Mail list logo
