Am 11.01.2011 16:17, schrieb Vincent Pottier:
Le 11/01/2011 15:00, Michał Borsuk a écrit :
Everybody: please note that I am not stubbornly defending the old
way. I just want to make sure that *efficiency, ease of use and the
learning curve* had been taken into account when designing the new
standard.
My experience is in France where JOSM is very used, because of
cadastre tools.
Mapping bus route is not easy for new comers.
Good, so making it more complicated is indeed not the right thing to do.
That's all I want understood, there cadre of experienced users is not
falling from the sky. It is not growing by itself, but rather getting
smaller (I mean, people stop mapping at some point, and the only way to
became a pro is to be a beginner at some point). So the *learning curve
*is the magic word. It cannot be crazily complicated, because we're
going to be left with a handful of public transport mappers, discussing
yet another version of a standard, but for ourselves.
It seems that having one relation per direction, when they differ, is
easier to manage for newbies, than managing roles. Besause JOSM has a
good tool to follow continuity of the path.
It seems also that they are enough example well mapped in France for
new comers to learn this way.
Mapping bus route is not easy, but it is not so hard to learn.
The problem is that the entry level tool that we have, namely Potlatch,
does not support copying nor nesting of relations.
Again, I am not criticizing the project from data point of view.
Data-wise it is very good. But it's too difficult to learn, and really
unnecessary in many cases.
--
Best regards, mit freundlichen Grüssen, meilleurs sentiments, Pozdrowienia,
Michał Borsuk
_______________________________________________
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
