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

Dominik Mahrer (Teddy) teddy at teddy.ch
Fri Dec 10 13:04:32 GMT 2010

Hi Richard

> 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.

This sounds more to try to find a consensus then all you have written 

It's up to the mapper how much time he/she wants to spend in mapping 
bus/tram routes. The more time he/she has the more exact the result will be.

One simple relation per direction is not more work then only one 
relation for both directions with complicated roles.

If you do not want (or your software can't) create a master relation, 
just leave it away.

Reflecting very complicated variants should be possible for interested 
power mappers. This is what Oxomoa already wanted to cover nearly two 
years ago and several mappers are already using.


More information about the Talk-transit mailing list