[Talk-transit] Proposed Feature - RFC - Public Transport
Dominik Mahrer (Teddy)
teddy at teddy.ch
Fri Dec 10 05:49:26 GMT 2010
On 12/10/2010 12:08 AM, Michael von Glasow wrote:
>>> 3. Which data primitive should be added for stops?
>> Stop positions AND platform. Stop position is important for the route
>> itself, the platform is important for pedestrian routing.
> Fine for me, though it does mean some more effort to enter data. Except
> that we might consider adding the platform right after the stop it
> belongs to - that would make it easier to verify that both are there.
You are right. I have to think about.
> As far as I know, this is accurately defined: it is relative to the
> tagged way direction, which may or may correspond to the route
> direction. But I, too, realize that this part confuses people. If we
> agree that ways must always be sorted, each way sharing an end node with
> the ones before and after (which I strongly recommend), then we can
> extract this information from the route itself without tagging it
It is defined, yes. But not everyone reads the part, and even if he/she
read it and does it correctly: Another mapper could reverse the way for
some reason and the relation is broken.
>> I map the variant with the most stops (in your example twice A B1 E1
>> K. In JOSM you can easily copy a relation and change what is
>> different. So to handle your 8 variants should not take 8 times
>> mapping one variant.
> That works when you have the entire route from beginning to end. But
> some of us (I do) often follow just a part of the way and enter that,
> hoping to complete it at a later occasion (or someone else doing it).
> And once you have two partially-complete relations, updating them both
> together mostly means editing each relation manually.
This is correct, but this is not a problem of partially or not. This is
brought up by a route for each variant.
But I hope your routes in Milan are not updated every two weeks...
More information about the Talk-transit