[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - PTv2 Improvements wrt Rapid Transit

José G Moya Y. josemoya at gmail.com
Sun Dec 10 13:44:19 UTC 2017


I specially agree with Ilya here:



linking stop positions and platforms via relation with a station: if the
> station is mapped as an area, this shouldn’t be needed, as there’s already
> a spatial link
>

Oh come on, we're talking about underground stations. A spatial link will
get you all the bus platforms overground.


why are tracks optional for route relations? Isn’t that in contradiction
> with the generic route relation definition? Shouldn’t this become a
> different type of relation if it isn’t about an explicit route anymore?
>

In my opinion, tracks should be optional for all public transport route
relations, but let's start with rapid transit routes, when most of the time
you don't see tracks, because they are underground. Mapping what you don't
see and cannot check on the ground is questionable.


As a casual mapper, not endorsed by any company or institution, my initial
objections against Ilya proposal were based on the difficulty to map "what
is on the ground" when you don't have access to the ground. The proposal
allows casual mappers link entries with stations, stations in a route,
before someone with enough qualification/disclosure access can make a
detailed map of underground areas where carrying teodolytes or gps
repeaters or simply taking shoots could raise up anger from security
personnel.

Yours,
José.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20171210/cfcee0fb/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list