> In my opinion, PTv2 is too complicated, time-consuming and delicate, ...
Sorry, I've meant inefficient, not time-consuming. On 29 March 2018 at 00:13, Selfish Seahorse <selfishseaho...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Many people were involved creating those tags, they are well understood and >> discriminate the features they describe in a thoroughly documented and >> plausible way. > > Apparently these tags aren't that well understood: I rarely encounter > a PTv2 route that doesn't have at least one tagging error or isn't > otherwise broken. And quite often I find public_transport=platform > ways even though there isn't a physical platform. > > In my opinion, PTv2 is too complicated, time-consuming and delicate, > and its tags aren't the most clear (e.g. waiting areas are called > 'platform' even if there is no physical platform). > > But maybe the biggest problem, as Michael pointed out, is that > renderers can't know if a public_transport=platform – the most > important object for people looking for a public transport stop on a > map – is served by a bus or a tram, because it isn't tagged with > bus/tram/...=yes. > > I'm wondering why the limitations of PTv1 [^1] haven't been solved by > keeping PTv1 tags, introducing route variant/master relations and > mapping tram stops at the waiting area. > > [^1]: > <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Public_Transport#Main_problem_with_the_existing_schema> > > > On 28 March 2018 at 16:21, "Christian Müller" <cmu...@gmx.de> wrote: >>> Sent: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 16:53:28 +0300 >>> From: "Ilya Zverev" <i...@zverev.info> >>> To: tagging@openstreetmap.org >>> Subject: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms >>> >>> Hi folks, >>> >>> A while ago I've made a proposal to deprecate some public_transport=* tags: >>> >>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Drop_stop_positions_and_platforms >>> >> >> In your proposal you complain about subjectively felt things like "history >> won't go away", but at the same time you are trying to revert a part of >> history itself - "the public_transport tags are seven years old now". Many >> people were involved creating those tags, they are well understood and >> discriminate the features they describe in a thoroughly documented and >> plausible way. >> >> Just because a lot of deprecated tags have not vanished in favor of the new >> ones yet does not mean there is a preference on the deprecated tags. A lot >> of users and apps have adopted the new public_transport tags. It simply >> does not make any sense to do a rollback on these for the observation of a >> sluggish adoption/transition rate. >> >> The proposal has been long thought about and delivers, in itself, a coherent >> way of tagging public transport infrastructure. It has learned from >> previous tags, it is thus a refinement of the previous tagging. There will >> be lots of people -unheared and not- that oppose breaking a (slow moving) >> transition process at this point in time. Just be patient and give it some >> more years. >> >> You could help and promote the adoption, instead of dilating it. A lot of >> rural area data has not been touched for years, waiting for you to do >> research and remapping efforts. >> >> >> Greetings >> cmuelle8 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Tagging mailing list >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
