On 12/13/2010 02:17 AM, David Peek wrote:
Can I just add, this seems to sum up most of my feelings towards this
discussion - if it can be called that.
Yes you can, and thanks you do.
On 12 December 2010 13:35, Jerry Clough - OSM <sk53_...@yahoo.co.uk
<mailto:sk53_...@yahoo.co.uk>> wrote:
Odd, this, as I can immediately think of the opposite use case:
several marked bus stops, but the buses stop at random positions
over about 100m of road depending on how many other buses are
present. Individual buses serving the same routes will stop in
completely different places (sometimes two or more buses serving the
same route will be present at the stop).
Not sure about this, but it's not the main thrust of the message in my
opinion.
The main message I want to say is: There are mappers hoping for/needing
a more exact schema to be able to reflect some cases they can not be
mapped adequate at the moment.
Please stop referring to the current widespread practice of
highway=bus_stop mapped at the pole as 'old': in doing so you are
instantly raising the hackles of those who have spent time on the
ground mapping, rather than writing proposals on the wiki.
Agreed. "Old" implies it has been replaced or is depreciated. That is
unhelpful given to my knowledge this is the case neither in theory or
(more importantly) in practice.
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
"traditional" or "conventional" would be the better word, expressing
what I wanted to say.
For all I know the various discussions and proposals may have some
value, but I find the initial tone off-putting, lacking respect and
overly confrontational. It is not a good route (;-)) to building
consensus. By far and away the best approach is to map a specific
area, and show how it really adds value to the map and to a range of
data consumers (not just a pet public transport router). If it
really is better than what exists you'll get people using it:
telling people they're stupid, which is the basic tone of many
messages to this list and discussions on the wiki is less likely to
be successful.
Thanks for the constructive idea to map an area with that. I will do
this for a bus line.
As I implied further up, I don't think discussions is really an
appropriate word. Most of the messages seem to be of the "I am right,
you are wrong" variety. Hardly a good way to build consensus.
You are right, this is not the way to a consensus.
I get a lot of constructive criticism about the proposal, especially on
the talk page. This gives me a lot of input to revise the proposal. This
also shows me that many mappers are interested in something new/corrected.
In contrast to that I get only one message on this list: We have a
schema, we do not want to correct the inconsistency of it and we do not
want to have anything additional.
I do not say my proposal is the best. But I think it is time to
extend/correct the currently used schema. Constructive criticism is
highly welcome.
Regards,
Teddych
_______________________________________________
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
