[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Public Transport v3

Dave F davefoxfac63 at btinternet.com
Sun Mar 8 13:46:45 UTC 2020


This proposal by Stereo is nothing really new.  Just a alternative to 
routing which has been around since relations were introduced. 
Definitely not 'PTv3'. The 'via' option appears almost as difficult to 
maintain as including ways.


On 08/03/2020 01:41, John Doe wrote:


>
> That would be tempting, because it would mean a lot less work for us in the short term. However, I'm afraid of ending up like PTv2 -
> 1. It 'does not deprecate the old tags', use of the new tags is 'recommended but not mandatory'...whatever that means.
It means PTv2 tags aren't required as there are existing tags performing 
the same job.
> 2. People with a preference for the old tags see that as an excuse to keep using them

No. They are preferred because they simple to comprehend, accurate & 
abundant.
> 3. Consumers see that as an excuse to not support the new schema, even after 8 years of people requesting it - https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/311
PTv2 isn't supported because it's not abundant (people get bored of 
adding them after a couple weeks)

> 4. People who want to use the new tags have to use _both_ sets of tags 🤦♀️
No they don't. They can use just the original tags. PTv2 tags are pure 
duplication.
> 5. Both sets of tags have to be documented, making the documentation more verbose than it might be.
> They should coexist...for a transitional phase. But it has to be just that - a _transition_, not a permanent inconsistent mess.

The original tags are here to stay because they work. PTv2 is a 
*separate*, *independent* scarcer schema running in parallel that adds 
nothing over existing tags.

It is only PTv2 which is the mess. Even those who conceived it are 
confused by it.

DaveF



More information about the Tagging mailing list