On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Dominik Mahrer (Teddy) <te...@teddy.ch> wrote: > Adding highway=tram_stop as the representation of the tram pole eliminates > the inconsistency between railway=tram_stop and highway=bus_stop. What do > you suggest for trains?
railway=platform ways/areas replace the station nodes in the ordered list of stops > Here in Switzerland we have up to 470m long trains (German ICE), so we have > up to 470m long platforms with often two or more poles (or displays as a > replacement) per platform. Does it make sense to map all poles/displays and > to add them to the relation? Doesn't it make more sense to replace the > pole(s)/display(s) with the platform for relation data to simplify things? If the platform breaks into distinct sections (such as the A-E on DB main stations or U-Z on SNCF) then there could be distinct nodes/ways/areas for each section. You might have the whole length of the platform as an area, with subsections (or groups of subsections) done as ways, so you can choose which to make a member of the relation. Which mainline service uses which platform can be a bit variable, so you may just end up using the station node anyway. > What do you suggest as the stop position for buses (as counterpart of > railway=tram_stop and railway=halt)? Or would you leave this completely > away? I wouldn't tag it. It isn't tagged at the vast majority of bus stops, so data users are going to have to find a way of coping with it not being marked, and will probably ignore any that are marked. I also wouldn't include the stop position in a relation unless it's the only node available. Richard _______________________________________________ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
