On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 6:43 AM, Dominik Mahrer (Teddy) te...@teddy.ch wrote:
On 12/29/2010 12:30 AM, Richard Mann wrote:
If someone maps a single node on the way and calls it
highway=bus_stop, then that should be OK (but not recommended).
unified_stoparea recommends that. You would allow
On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 9:09 PM, Dominik Mahrer (Teddy) te...@teddy.ch wrote:
Other mappers want to map a stop_position. At the moment they abuse
highway=bus_stop as stop_position.
What do you suggest these mappers to use for as stop_position?
If someone maps a single node on the way and
On 12/29/2010 12:30 AM, Richard Mann wrote:
If someone maps a single node on the way and calls it
highway=bus_stop, then that should be OK (but not recommended).
unified_stoparea recommends that. You would allow but not recommend it,
correct?
If someone then wants to put highway=bus_stop
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 8:32 AM, Dominik Mahrer (Teddy) te...@teddy.ch wrote:
How would you
handle existing routes, only containing the stop_positions
(railway=tram_stop)? Removing stop positions and adding the platform/pole?
Leave them as they are. Or add platforms or highway=tram_stop nodes
On 12/13/2010 11:35 PM, Richard Mann wrote:
Because sometimes trams just stop in the road, not at anything that
might be described as a platform. The only thing you can see is a pole
(looking remarkably like a bus stop, in fact). You could call them
railway=platform nodes, but it doesn't sound
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 8:54 AM, Dominik Mahrer (Teddy) te...@teddy.ch wrote:
You both are right, old is the wrong word for what I wanted to say. I do
not want to replace or deprecate highway=bus_stop. Because English is not my
first language, I catched up to consult my dictionary and I think
I'm one of the people who would like to add data about Public Tranportation.
Since nobody likes to have to enter the same data several times, I can
understand the need for a 'definitive' way to map PT in such a way that all
downstream users (map rendereres, routers, etc) have the information they
On 12/13/2010 11:52 AM, Jo wrote:
I like the proposal, the only thing I don't like about it is the massive
duplication of information in the route relations, which will make it
harder to maintain them in the long run. But I see why we would do it
that way. Maybe I'll come up with a proposal for
I think I may have figured out what it is that the established tags can't do.
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
On 12/13/2010 01:12 PM, Richard Mann wrote:
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
On 12/13/2010 06:26 PM, Albin Michlmayr wrote:
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
On 12/11/2010 03:32 PM, Michał Borsuk wrote:
And by the way: What physical thing is represented by railway=tram_stop?
I don't deal with trams.
So you have a very limited view of Public Transport.
Whenever I criticize Oxomoa I hear the same silly argument: but in my
Siedlung there's a
:50
*Subject:* Re: [Talk-transit] Proposed Feature - RFC - Public Transport
Think of a terminal bus station somewhere in the center of a city. Four bus
lines end here. One platform of 50m. The four lines stop always at the same
position (line 1 is first,..., line 4 is last). Only one pole
On 11 December 2010 00:39, Richard Mann
richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.comwrote:
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 9:12 PM, Dominik Mahrer (Teddy) te...@teddy.ch
wrote:
Especially see the German talk page. I would like to approve a tagging
schema that is clearly defined. Doing this with new tags is
On 10 December 2010 22:12, Dominik Mahrer (Teddy) te...@teddy.ch wrote:
On 12/10/2010 08:55 PM, Richard Mann wrote:
I would agree that on-highway highway=bus_stop should be phased out
(is anyone saying they should be retained?). I think they're a
hangover from the time before we realised
On 11 December 2010 15:08, Dominik Mahrer (Teddy) te...@teddy.ch wrote:
On 12/11/2010 09:26 AM, Michał Borsuk wrote:
Many city and/or network public transport wiki pages in central
europe recommend to use highway=bus_stop _on_ the way
And they are wrong. Because according to OSM's
cool,
I'm just blogging this for later, the Oxoma Schema sounds interesting
to investigate further.
cheers,
sam
On 12/8/10, Michael von Glasow mich...@vonglasow.com wrote:
On 12/08/2010 08:44 PM, Dominik Mahrer (Teddy) wrote:
Hello
Yes, the Public Transport proposal is basically based on
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 5:29 AM, Dominik Mahrer (Teddy) te...@teddy.ch wrote:
On 12/10/2010 01:45 AM, Richard Mann wrote:
highway=bus_stop on a node next to a road
railway=tram_stop on a node on railway=tram
railway=platform on a node or way or area next to the tram tracks
This is how you
On 12/10/2010 11:20 AM, Richard Mann wrote:
I think
the biggest uncertainty is how you handle loops at the end of a route
- do you have overlapping single-direction relations, pick an
abritrary position to change direction, or stick with having both
directions in the same relation and let the
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 11:11 AM, Michał Borsuk michal.bor...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/10/2010 11:20 AM, Richard Mann wrote:
I think
the biggest uncertainty is how you handle loops at the end of a route
- do you have overlapping single-direction relations, pick an
abritrary position to change
Hi Richard
There appears to be a degree of consensus on using one type=route
relation per direction (though it's not entirely clear whether this is
really necessary), not worrying overmuch about telescopic routes or
occasional diversions, and (groaning but) creating separate relations
for
Think of a terminal bus station somewhere in the center of a city. Four
bus lines end here. One platform of 50m. The four lines stop always at
the same position (line 1 is first,..., line 4 is last). Only one pole
for all buses. Where do you place your tags? Or how do you tell where to
wait
On 10 December 2010 12:31, Richard Mann
richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.comwrote:
I was thinking that role=loop on the loop stops might be one way to do
it, with role=terminus for single-point route ends (and as a notional
terminus on a loop)?
I think we're talking about two slightly
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 3:31 PM, Dominik Mahrer (Teddy) te...@teddy.ch wrote:
Think of a terminal bus station somewhere in the center of a city. Four bus
lines end here. One platform of 50m. The four lines stop always at the same
position (line 1 is first,..., line 4 is last). Only one pole for
On 12/10/2010 08:55 PM, Richard Mann wrote:
I would agree that on-highway highway=bus_stop should be phased out
(is anyone saying they should be retained?). I think they're a
hangover from the time before we realised that tagging the pole was a
better approach. In the mean time, I don't think
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 9:12 PM, Dominik Mahrer (Teddy) te...@teddy.ch wrote:
Especially see the German talk page. I would like to approve a tagging
schema that is clearly defined. Doing this with new tags is portably the
easiest way. Redefining highway=bus_stop on or beside the way seams to be
On 12/11/2010 12:39 AM, Richard Mann wrote:
The English-language discussion appears to have long reached a
consensus (except for you).
The decision to place highway=bus_stop beside the road has been made
before highway=platform existed. Without highway=platform I also would
vote for beside
Why do routers need a node on the street? Next you'll be wanting me to
put a node on the street outside every house so you can route to a
house. This is a problem that should be solved by the router, not in
the data.
Richard
___
Talk-transit mailing
On 8 December 2010 20:44, Dominik Mahrer (Teddy) te...@teddy.ch wrote:
Hello
Yes, the Public Transport proposal is basically based on Oxomoa, but in
some details different.
I do not care about which of the two proposals will be approved. But I think
it is time to get a more exact schema
On 09.12.2010 13:31, Michał Borsuk wrote:
There is the issue of multiple relations per line in oxomoa, which
in my opinion is a total misfit. There are roles in relations, and
different variants of a route can be put there. Two, or more,
relations per line is not only illegal (clearly against
On 12/09/2010 01:31 PM, Michał Borsuk wrote:
On 8 December 2010 20:44, Dominik Mahrer (Teddy) te...@teddy.ch
mailto:te...@teddy.ch wrote:
Hello
Yes, the Public Transport proposal is basically based on Oxomoa,
but in some details different.
I do not care about which of the
On 12/09/2010 06:35 AM, Dominik Mahrer (Teddy) wrote:
Hi Michael
In the new proposal I am missing some details on how to build relations:
1. Should the outward and return trip be represented as two separate
relations, as a single relation or is that up to the mapper?
Each direction should
On 12/10/2010 01:45 AM, Richard Mann wrote:
highway=bus_stop on a node next to a road
railway=tram_stop on a node on railway=tram
railway=platform on a node or way or area next to the tram tracks
This is how you are using it.
It is inconsistent.
It is incomplete.
It is historic.
Beside your
Hi,
I want to invite everyone to comment the (in central europe) already
widely used new Public Transport Schema:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Public_Transport
Teddych
___
Talk-transit mailing list
Dominik Mahrer (Teddy teddy at teddy.ch writes:
I want to invite everyone to comment the (in central europe) already
widely used new Public Transport Schema:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Public_Transport
Hello,
it's based on Oxomoa scheme, isn't it?
What's the
Hi Michael
In the new proposal I am missing some details on how to build relations:
1. Should the outward and return trip be represented as two separate
relations, as a single relation or is that up to the mapper?
Each direction should be in a separate relation. This is written in the
36 matches
Mail list logo
