Jeffrey Martin wrote: > I've made a decision for what I am going > to do. > > If I wait until there is some standard way > it will be a hassle to find all these stops > later instead of putting them in now > with all the other data, and I might loose > my little scraps of paper. > > Here's my plan of action. I'm going to put > a node on the exact location of each > bus stop offset from the way. I don't want > to loose that location data until I'm sure we > want to throw it out. Putting a node on the > way instead would essentially erase the location > of the stops and shelters. > > If someone wants to come along later and put > a node on the way or make some kind of association > they can do that.
That does seem to be the sensible way of doing it, in the absence of any other guidelines. What of cause is missing is some means of relating it easily to the way that then are actually linked to ? A nice 'is_in' link to the 'unique_id' of the way so that one can actually find all the bus stops on a route ;) Looking at the way things have developed, is there any reason we can't set a tag for is_in, and then select a way, so that the key becomes is_in=#xxxxxxxx ? I don't think Relations has the necessary structure yet to be useful here? -- Lester Caine - G8HFL ----------------------------- Contact - http://home.lsces.co.uk/lsces/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://home.lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk// Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
