Re: [Talk-transit] Summary of Public Transport Proposal Criticism -> a real example from Zürich

2011-02-02 Thread Dominik Mahrer (Teddy)
On 02/03/2011 12:40 AM, Richard Mann wrote: On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 11:10 PM, Michael von Glasow wrote: Hence, in most cases the extra node on the way is what I call courtesy tagging - it makes things easier for the renderer (less preprocessing) but can be automated. I would tend towards manual

Re: [Talk-transit] Summary of Public Transport Proposal Criticism -> a real example from Zürich

2011-02-02 Thread Richard Mann
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 11:10 PM, Michael von Glasow wrote: > Hence, in most cases the extra node on the way is what I call courtesy > tagging - it makes things easier for the renderer (less preprocessing) but > can be automated. I would tend towards manual tagging only in those cases in > which he

Re: [Talk-transit] Summary of Public Transport Proposal Criticism -> a real example from Zürich

2011-02-02 Thread Michael von Glasow
On 02/02/2011 04:13 PM, Richard Mann wrote: On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Michał Borsuk wrote: On 01/27/2011 06:56 PM, ant wrote: 3) Whether there should be a new public_transport key, to try to clarify the bus_stop/tram_stop distinction a) aim to move tram_stops to alongside the track, and

Re: [Talk-transit] Summary of Public Transport Proposal Criticism -> a real example from Zürich

2011-02-02 Thread Richard Mann
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Michał Borsuk wrote: > On 01/27/2011 06:56 PM, ant wrote: >>> 3) Whether there should be a new public_transport key, to try to >>> clarify the bus_stop/tram_stop distinction >>> a) aim to move tram_stops to alongside the track, and put something >>> else (tram_stop

Re: [Talk-transit] Summary of Public Transport Proposal Criticism -> a real example from Zürich

2011-02-02 Thread Dominik Mahrer (Teddy)
On 02.02.2011 13:04, Michał Borsuk wrote: Let's just get down to differences, I say your proposal is too difficult. I've already spoken well about its data integrity, but new users don't care about it. We need something that is as good as yours in data integrity, and as easy to grasp as my propos

Re: [Talk-transit] NEW Proposed Feature

2011-02-02 Thread Richard Mann
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 1:42 PM, Jo wrote: > Is it possible to add a way to a relation twice with Potlatch? And is > it possible to show that 1 way is part of a relation multiple times? Yes. Oxford Bus route 9 now has a certain section of the Green Road roundabout twice. Richard

Re: [Talk-transit] NEW Proposed Feature

2011-02-02 Thread Jo
2011/2/2 Michał Borsuk : > On 01/28/2011 02:45 PM, Jo wrote: >> >>    Yes that's one option. I'm a bit reluctant to put in separate >>    relations for each direction unless someone actually gives me a >>    compelling reason to do so. I already have some ways with more than 20 >>    relations, and

Re: [Talk-transit] NEW Proposed Feature

2011-02-02 Thread Jo
Is it possible to add a way to a relation twice with Potlatch? And is it possible to show that 1 way is part of a relation multiple times? In JOSM, I noticed such ways are shown in red. This is important for routes that double back on themselves. (Of course, only if one route is used per direction

Re: [Talk-transit] NEW Proposed Feature

2011-02-02 Thread Richard Mann
Potlatch 2 includes a display of the ways/nodes in order, and you can move them about, but it doesn't currently tell you anything about the member, except the id and the role (so it's pretty much a list of random numbers). I've raised a ticket requesting at least the member's name to be displayed,

Re: [Talk-transit] NEW Proposed Feature

2011-02-02 Thread Michał Borsuk
On 01/28/2011 07:26 PM, Michael von Glasow wrote: On 01/28/2011 11:59 AM, Richard Mann wrote: As I said in my previous post, I'm open to discussing that, though I personally find tram stops beside the way are more consistent with bus stops. That, plus one data point for two geographical locatio

Re: [Talk-transit] NEW Proposed Feature

2011-02-02 Thread Michał Borsuk
On 01/28/2011 02:45 PM, Jo wrote: Yes that's one option. I'm a bit reluctant to put in separate relations for each direction unless someone actually gives me a compelling reason to do so. I already have some ways with more than 20 relations, and I don't really want to double that

Re: [Talk-transit] NEW Proposed Feature

2011-02-02 Thread Michał Borsuk
On 01/28/2011 01:16 PM, Richard Mann wrote: On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Jo wrote: You look at the schedule for that line and determine which one is considered the terminus by the PT company. Yes that's one option. I've implemented it. I'm a bit reluctant to put in separate relations

Re: [Talk-transit] Summary of Public Transport Proposal Criticism -> a real example from Zürich

2011-02-02 Thread Michał Borsuk
On 01/27/2011 06:56 PM, ant wrote: Hi, On 27.01.2011 10:49, Richard Mann wrote: Thanks, Richard. I think we've got three broad decisions: 1) Whether the use of stop area / group relations should be a) widespread b) exceptional b b, ideally with a definition to what cases those exceptio

Re: [Talk-transit] Summary of Public Transport Proposal Criticism -> a real example from Zürich

2011-02-02 Thread Michał Borsuk
On 01/27/2011 07:20 AM, Dominik Mahrer (Teddy) wrote: On 01/26/2011 08:40 PM, Michał Borsuk wrote: The bus service number 10 in Wintherthur is the most simple case you can have. Absolutely no exceptions. See timetables of the two terminal stations: So there is yet another "line 10" mixed at th