It is generally a bad idea to store data twice in different places. Any database expert will agree with that. It's a simple question of data maintanance. OSM is being suffocated with imports/insertion of data that are maintained outside OSM, and hence needs regular re-import or manual update: buildings, landuse, monumental trees, publc transport routes, whatever, and now even time tables of public transpiort. How on earth can we maintain all that stuff in a single data base with our manpower? And as we cannot maintain our data copies in OSM, they will drift apart from the originals from the moment they are imported/inserted. No reasonable person would trust public transport timetables that are in OSM.
My five Eurocents. Volker On Wed, 31 Oct 2018 at 09:02, OSMDoudou < 19b350d2-b1b3-4edb-ad96-288ea1238...@gmx.com> wrote: > As you don't provide more details, this statement reads as a personal > preference and isn't helping in improving the proposal of enabling public > transport routing. Can you make a more factual and informative explanation > as to how it would be bad for OSM to contain timetable data? The proposal > mentions a number of interesting use cases. Thx. > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging