[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Validity of Route Relations

[Michael Reichert]

Hi Warin,

Am 2017-10-13 um 23:22 schrieb Warin:
> On 14-Oct-17 04:11 AM, Michael Reichert wrote:
>> end_date=* is used on disused objects or objects whose last day of
>> operation/service is known. Common examples are disused railway tracks
>> or shops which announced the last day they will be open. The latter
>> example is mainly used in areas with a high density of active mappers.
>> :-)
>>
>> The wiki page you linked to discourages the use of end_date=* because
>> historic information is kept in OSM only until a certain limit. An
>> object with highway=trunk + end_date=2016-05-21 should be tagged
>> highway=disused + disused=trunk (or lifecycle prefix instead) and maybe
>> with end_date=* because data consumers are not used to look on secondary
>> tags which invert the meaning of the main tag.
>>
>> I did not choose end_date=YYYY-MM-DD because that tag would imply that
>> the service on the given public transport line will end YYYY-MM-DD but
>> that's wrong. timetable:valid_until=* is intended to be an expiry tag
>> (i.e. you don't have to check this OSM object until YYYY-MM-DD.
> 
> timetable:end_date=* would be better than a new tag of valid_until=* ?

I am ok with using timetable:end_date=* instead of
timetable:valid_until=*. But I am not ok with valid_until=* because it
implies that the service on the given line will end on the given date.
But what I want to express is the validity of the timetable the route
relation is based on.

>> Unfortunately, sometimes timetables or operators change not only in
>> December but also in June. New (railway) lines or stations are not
>> always opened at the great timetable change in December. There are
>> frequent cases when (smaller) stations are opened in the course of the
>> year.
>>
> The unscheduled changes will also occur with timetable:end_date=*, or
> similar.

If a new halt on a line is opened in the course of the year, the route
relations has to be modified on that date. If a mapper knows that a new
halt will be added before the next timetable change (sometimes
timetables have nots like "halt X is not served until <date>"), he
could/should set the timetable:valid_until=* to the planned opening date
of the new halt.

Best regards

Michael


-- 
Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt. (Mailinglisten
ausgenommen)
I prefer GPG encryption of emails. (does not apply on mailing lists)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20171014/970df659/attachment.sig>