[Talk-transit] Proposed Feature - 2nd RFC - Public Transport

[Michał Borsuk]

On 11 January 2011 07:24, Dominik Mahrer (Teddy) <teddy at teddy.ch> wrote:

> Hi all
>
> One month ago I already posted an RFC on this proposal. In the meantime I
> got plenty of comments and I have extended/corrected/rewritten nearly the
> whole proposal.
>
> Please visit again
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Public_Transport
>
> Regards
> Teddych
>
>
Extending my previous post: I've given a quick look to the proposal, and it
seems to combine what is now used, with what oxomoa had proposed. Oxomoa has
been criticized as unnecessarily complicated, and you seem not to have
addresses this issue. What is now proposed is in my opinion worse that what
was before, exactly because it does not address oxomoa's issues. The
proposed schema is more complicated, i.e. instead of one point for a bus
stop, three (!) are proposed: one for the place where the bus stops, and two
platforms, if they exist.

Moreover, the unnecessary in 99% of cases practice of using two relations
for each line is kept, two relations (one in each direction), plus there's a
mother relation, the so-called "route master". A few important issues arise:


* First of all, *Potlatch** does not allow the creation of nested relations*.
Potlatch, when I last looked at statistics, was responsible for 1/3 of all
edits. How do you plan to address this issue?

* Secondly, the creation of such relations is neither easy, nor quick. It
may discourage new mappers as *the learning curve would be much more
difficult*. And it may be perceived as an unnecessary and discouraging. Not
the way to go if we want to increase the quality of the map, which has to be
done by humans.

* Thirdly, Please again *elaborate on the efficiency* of such a solution,
because it seems that the small gain in quality is offset by the huge loss
in time necessary to achieve this. Also, maintaining lines in *three *relations
will be hell: any change of the line will require at least *double* work. Is
there really a good reason for the double work? There have been other
proposals how to deal with lines that have different trace in each
direction, and those were easier than one relation in each direction
(disclosure: one proposal was mine)

As for the examples, all those below seem to be coming from you:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1342798/history
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1244886/history
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1281532/history

Is there anybody else using it? I'd like to see more examples out of Germany
or Switzerland, bitte.



-- 
Best regards, mit freundlichen Grüssen, meilleurs sentiments, Pozdrowienia,

Michał Borsuk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-transit/attachments/20110111/b5678bc3/attachment.html>