[Talk-transit] NEW Proposed Feature
michal.borsuk at gmail.com
Wed Feb 2 12:28:51 GMT 2011
On 01/28/2011 02:45 PM, Jo wrote:
> Yes that's one option. I'm a bit reluctant to put in separate
> relations for each direction unless someone actually gives me a
> compelling reason to do so. I already have some ways with more than 20
> relations, and I don't really want to double that number without good
> Lijn 7 uses Krijkelberg twice. Bus stop Sint-Kamillus is served by both
> directions. This can be mapped without ambiguity if there is one
> relation for each direction.
Do we need such level of details if we can't present it to the user at
> Bus station in Leuven. It's perfectly clear where the buses will travel.
> Not so if both directions are in only one relation.
Is the improvement worth the extra time?
> Sure it would be possible to program something to process a 1 route
> relation, but it would not be straightforward.
Such situations are quite exceptional. I would know, because I've mapped
a mixed urban-suburban area, where some lines are the perfect A-to-B
straight lines, and some are pretty crazy (spoon shape is the least
strange of all).
So: how about "two relations per line are to be optional in cases where
one relation does not successfully explain the route"?
> Most importantly though,
> with one route relation per direction, it's a whole lot easier for the
> mappers to check that the relation is continuous.
At the cost of extra time to enter and maintain, and confusion (it's not
how it is on printed maps!).
I've managed to check continuity with one route, and if you're worried
about continuity in the aspect of future routing, then it's irrelevant -
routing software does not follow the route itself, but its bus stops.
I am a die-hard opponent of relation-per-direction, but please convince
me that it is really worth it.
> As far as routes go that have a shorter itinerary during the week, I
> wouldn't make an extra sets of relations for those. Simply put the
> longest road traveled in both relations.
Sure, that's the way to go, but what is your proposal for routes with
different paths? I have at least 2 such routes, each has 4 variants. I
have so far mapped them as one relation, but this is suboptimal. Four
relations are not much better, and if I were to apply one relation per
direction, I'd have eight. That's an overkill.
More information about the Talk-transit