[Talk-transit] Proposed Feature - RFC - Public Transport

Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxford at gmail.com
Fri Dec 10 10:20:22 GMT 2010


On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 5:29 AM, Dominik Mahrer (Teddy) <teddy at teddy.ch> wrote:
> On 12/10/2010 01:45 AM, Richard Mann wrote:
>>
>> highway=bus_stop on a node next to a road
>> railway=tram_stop on a node on railway=tram
>> railway=platform on a node or way or area next to the tram tracks
>
> This is how you are using it.
> It is inconsistent.
> It is incomplete.
> It is historic.

I don't think you are going to get consensus with that sort of
aggressive language (or indeed with any complex proposal that isn't
graciously compatible with existing large-scale uses).

The only inconsistency is that "tram_stop" generally refers to a
stopping place and "bus_stop" generally refers to a quay. This is not
enough reason to propose changing half a million established tags.
Sometimes trams stop at bus_stops and sometimes buses stop at
platforms, but that's not a reason to change the tags to something
more generic.

Relations for stop-groups are generally supported, but data-users need
to be able to bundle adjacent stops with the same name for themselves,
not rely on the presence of a relation.

There appears to be a degree of consensus on using one type=route
relation per direction (though it's not entirely clear whether this is
really necessary), not worrying overmuch about telescopic routes or
occasional diversions, and (groaning but) creating separate relations
for routes that branch. Some of the work to implement this is waiting
on Potlatch2 (which will have rather better relation support). I think
the biggest uncertainty is how you handle loops at the end of a route
- do you have overlapping single-direction relations, pick an
abritrary position to change direction, or stick with having both
directions in the same relation and let the data user worry about it.

Richard



More information about the Talk-transit mailing list