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

Dominik Mahrer (Teddy) teddy at teddy.ch
Mon Dec 13 08:54:59 GMT 2010


On 12/13/2010 02:17 AM, David Peek wrote:
> Can I just add, this seems to sum up most of my feelings towards this
> discussion - if it can be called that.

Yes you can, and thanks you do.

> On 12 December 2010 13:35, Jerry Clough - OSM <sk53_osm at yahoo.co.uk
> <mailto:sk53_osm at yahoo.co.uk>> wrote:
>
>     Odd, this, as I can immediately think of the opposite use case:
>     several marked bus stops, but the buses stop at random positions
>     over about 100m of road depending on how many other buses are
>     present. Individual buses serving the same routes will stop in
>     completely different places (sometimes two or more buses serving the
>     same route will be present at the stop).
>
> Not sure about this, but it's not the main thrust of the message in my
> opinion.

The main message I want to say is: There are mappers hoping for/needing 
a more exact schema to be able to reflect some cases they can not be 
mapped adequate at the moment.

>     Please stop referring to the current widespread practice of
>     highway=bus_stop mapped at the pole as 'old': in doing so you are
>     instantly raising the hackles of those who have spent time on the
>     ground mapping, rather than writing proposals on the wiki.
>
> Agreed. "Old" implies it has been replaced or is depreciated. That is
> unhelpful given to my knowledge this is the case neither in theory or
> (more importantly) in practice.

You both are right, "old" is the wrong word for what I wanted to say. I 
do not want to replace or deprecate highway=bus_stop. Because English is 
not my first language, I catched up to consult my dictionary and I think 
"traditional" or "conventional" would be the better word, expressing 
what I wanted to say.

>     For all I know the various discussions and proposals may have some
>     value, but I find the initial tone off-putting, lacking respect and
>     overly confrontational. It is not a good route (;-)) to building
>     consensus. By far and away the best approach is to map a specific
>     area, and show how it really adds value to the map and to a range of
>     data consumers (not just a pet public transport router). If it
>     really is better than what exists you'll get people using it:
>     telling people they're stupid, which is the basic tone of many
>     messages to this list and discussions on the wiki is less likely to
>     be successful.

Thanks for the constructive idea to map an area with that. I will do 
this for a bus line.

> As I implied further up, I don't think discussions is really an
> appropriate word. Most of the messages seem to be of the "I am right,
> you are wrong" variety. Hardly a good way to build consensus.

You are right, this is not the way to a consensus.

I get a lot of constructive criticism about the proposal, especially on 
the talk page. This gives me a lot of input to revise the proposal. This 
also shows me that many mappers are interested in something new/corrected.

In contrast to that I get only one message on this list: We have a 
schema, we do not want to correct the inconsistency of it and we do not 
want to have anything additional.

I do not say my proposal is the best. But I think it is time to 
extend/correct the currently used schema. Constructive criticism is 
highly welcome.

Regards,
Teddych



More information about the Talk-transit mailing list