I try to seperate the criticism from the spam around my proposal:
- stop_area is not needed/too complicated:
According to taginfo there are already 64'500 stop area relations in the
OSM database (10'500 public transport/oxomoa, 1'500 stop place, 51'500
unified stoparea).
For me this is a reasonable number and we can't say it is only a
minority of eccentric mappers. It is a widely used tagging schema, badly
with several flavors. And it does not seam to be too complicated,
otherwise it would not be that much.
- stop_area_group is not needed:
I am about to change my mind here. stop_area_group was introduced by
oxomoa nearly two years ago. And there are less then 500 usages, not a
reasonable number.
I also see that the routing is better done with the existing ways of
OSM, so for routing it is usually not needed (like I thought).
I would like to introduce an unofficial vote on this list if I should
remove stop_area_group from the proposal. Please answer to this mail
with "stop_area_group: keep" if I should keep it or "stop_area_group:
remove" if I should remove the section stop_area_group from the proposal.
- route directions/variants is not needed:
In urban regions it is common that a bus line has different routes for
the both directions (often one way). The more exact the OSM map is, the
more likely it is that the two directions do not share the same way for
the both directions (the lines of one street are split up).
Out in the country where often both directions share the same way for
the whole part and perhaps not all bus stops are mapped the two
directions are only the reversed of the corresponding other. It is
correct, then it does not make sense to add two relations. But this
proposal does not obsolete the already known tagging schema with only
one relation. Why not using this then?
- route directions/variants is too complicated:
My opinion is: The roles forward/backward in the current tagging schema
is complicated and very, very error-prone. In my region nearly all
routes tagged with roles have errors. Reasons: reversed ways or
forward/backward was not understood correctly and has been tagged as the
direction of the bus instead of the way.
- route_master is not needed:
If all the information is tagged at the variants/directions it is not
really needed, this is correct. I thought it is clearly described in the
proposal that you can skip the route_master if you think it is not
needed. Even if this would not explicitly been written you are free to
leave away unneeded things, this is OSM.
IMHO not related to the proposal:
- potlatch can not handle the proposal/nested relations correctly:
Nested relations is a basic API function. And it is used also for other
schemas then for public transport (e.g. commonly used for borders).
Each of the three editors have their advantages and disadvantages. None
of the editor is the reference implementation. The reference is the API.
If potlatch should be an editor for everything, the authors of potlatch
should see it as an obligation to implement support for nested relations
(even if this proposal is not approved).
Teddych
_______________________________________________
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
