[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Public Transport v3

[Peter Elderson]

I get the impression that consensus and general adoption will not be
reached during my lifetime.

Good luck with it, I'm out!

Vr gr Peter Elderson


Op wo 11 mrt. 2020 om 12:13 schreef alan_gr <alangrant72 at gmail.com>:

> John Doe wrote
> > I don't understand why the critics of PTv2 seem to think stop positions
> > are such a big deal - they are optional!
>
> My memory of starting to map bus stops a few years ago is that it wasn't
> clear from the documentation that stop positions are optional. I certainly
> formed the impressions that they were required, and came to regret spending
> so much time mapping both stop positions and platforms. At that time I
> think
> the main reference for how to map using PTv2 was the proposal page itself,
> now archived at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?oldid=625726.
> That doesn't indicate that stop_position is optional (see "the Schema in
> short", where stop_area is explicitly described as optional, but
> stop_position is not).
>
> It seems other wiki pages have since been edited to make this optionality
> clearer. I notice that they also refer to adding bus=yes etc to platforms
> representing bus stops, which was not part of the PTv2 proposal, but I
> guess
> tries to deal with one of the issues that led people to prefer
> highway=bus_stop.
>
> Bringing this closer to the original topic ... if the proposal for PTv3 is
> "PTv2 with some exceptions", is there a single coherent reference for what
> is meant by "PTv2"?
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200311/71c7cf0a/attachment-0001.htm>