[Talk-transit] Relations for stop areas in NaPTAN

Frankie Roberto frankie at frankieroberto.com
Mon Sep 28 14:58:34 BST 2009


Jerry wrote:

I've just noticed that the relations for stop places generated in the NaPTAN
> import do not have a type. I just happened to be browsing through some
> KeepRight issues and noticed a number of relation without type ones.
>

I think the consensus is that these should become type=site. This can be
made more specific by either using site=* (eg site=railway_station) and/or
traditional tags like railway=station and amenity=bus_station.

Peter Miller wrote:

I noticed yesterday that the public transport article[1]  is still linking
> to 'User:Oxomoa/Public transport schema' article for tagging information
> even though this is a personal page and therefore not something that others
> should touch.
>

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Tirkon seems to have moved the
content from "Public transport" into "Public Transport", which was a
pre-existing page that linked to Oxomoa's proposal. I'm guessing that this
is to better link it to the DE:Public Transport page.  I can't remember what
we decided about capitalisation conventions (I think we'd said it was worth
following the Wikipedia-like "Public transport" style), so it might be worth
reversing these redirects.


> I have developed a Stop Area article[2] based on Oxomoa's proposal and
> which also included feedback from CEN. It is currently available as a
> 'proposed feature'. however it should in general echo current practice.
> Would it be appropriate to now move it into the main name-space and use it
> as the primary overview article for stations, bus stops etc?
>

I've been trying to slowly copy some of ideas from your proposal (and other
conventions in use) into the Public transport page, and the various mode
pages (eg Railways), as well as creating tag-specific pages where
appropriate (eg Tag:route=railway). I think this is probably a better
approach than trying to have one uber-proposal.


> If so should we just do it or do a formal vote first. Given that it is
> actually now a summary of current practice I would recommend moving it
> without voting but would be happy to follow the majority view. Thoughts
> please!
>

Agreed we don't need a vote.  Community consensus, and working examples, are
much more important.

Frankie

-- 
Frankie Roberto
Experience Designer, Rattle
0114 2706977
http://www.rattlecentral.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-transit/attachments/20090928/251ca66d/attachment.html>


More information about the Talk-transit mailing list