[Talk-transit] Summary of Public Transport Proposal Criticism

[Dominik Mahrer (Teddy)]

On 01/22/2011 08:38 PM, Michał Borsuk wrote:
> On 01/22/2011 09:32 AM, Dominik Mahrer (Teddy) wrote:
>> - stop_area is not needed/too complicated:
>> [...]And it does not seam to be too complicated,
 >
> And as for "not needed": can we have a *separate discussion* on how
> routing works? There had already been voices that stop_area isn't really
> necessary, and while I don't claim to be pro in routing software, I am
> pretty sure we don't need them.

For routing we do not need them, you are right. And we do not need them 
if all of the attributes are already tagged at the relations members.
But you can tag the shared and identical attributes of all relations 
members only to the relation instead of all members (if you want).

In the proposal all these tags are attributed with the sentence 
"recommended if no public_transport=stop_area exists". So if you like, 
leave away the stop_area and tag all shared attributes to all nodes/ways.

>> The more exact the OSM map is, the
>> more likely it is that the two directions do not share the same way for
>> the both directions (the lines of one street are split up).
>
> Again, this is not an argument as OSM is not a routing software, but a map.

Exactly, OSM is a map. And on a map I want to be able to read the route 
of a public transport service.

>> - route directions/variants is too complicated:
>> My opinion is: The roles forward/backward in the current tagging schema
>> is complicated and very, very error-prone.
>
> Then let's drop them altogether.

I agree with that!

Teddych