[Talk-transit] Summary of Public Transport Proposal Criticism -> a real example from Zürich

Michał Borsuk michal.borsuk at gmail.com
Wed Feb 2 12:12:17 GMT 2011

On 01/27/2011 06:56 PM, ant wrote:
> Hi,
> On 27.01.2011 10:49, Richard Mann wrote:

Thanks, Richard.

>> I think we've got three broad decisions:
>> 1) Whether the use of stop area / group relations should be
>> a) widespread
>> b) exceptional
> b

b, ideally with a definition to what cases those exceptions are.

>> 2) Whether route relations should
>> a) contain all the variants in one relation, with no attempt at
>> ordering, just stops identified as forward/backward
>> b) try to match all the individual stop-sets that you might find in a
>> timetable
>> c) contain an ordered set of ways/stops, in whatever fashion the
>> mapper feels appropriate
> b (by the way: how would (a) work in the case of a ring line?)

a or b

For ring or spoon-shaped lines, select an arbitrary terminus/termini. 
IMHO It's easier to do an exception for the occasional ring line, than 
enforce more difficult data structures on mappers (although I personally 
dislike roles, and would love to see them improved).

>> 3) Whether there should be a new public_transport key, to try to
>> clarify the bus_stop/tram_stop distinction
>> a) aim to move tram_stops to alongside the track, and put something
>> else (tram_stop_group / tram_station?) on the track
>> b) aim to move bus_stops onto the road, and put something else
>> (platform?) alongside
>> c) encourage the use of platforms on tram systems, and use those in
>> the relation instead of tram_stop
>> d) add a new public_transport key, so that public_transport=platform
>> can be used for everything
> c and d (we shouldn't redefine tags that are in million-times use!)

c. with pole *or* platform. Ideally there would be some degree of 
compatibility between tram stops and bus stops, i.e. a pair of tags on 
each side that are at least compatible to a degree.

> cheers
> ant



More information about the Talk-transit mailing list