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

[Richard Mann]

On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 6:20 AM, Dominik Mahrer (Teddy) <teddy at teddy.ch> wrote:
> And again: Why can't you accept, that others want to map something more in
> detail then you do?

Can we try and stop this personal stuff, and try to bring things back together?

I think we've got three broad decisions:

1) Whether the use of stop area / group relations should be
a) widespread
b) exceptional

I think the consensus is tending towards exceptional-use-only

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

I'd go for (c) myself, but others might want to be a bit more or less
prescriptive

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

I'd go for (a) myself. I think (b) won't happen, (c) causes potential
issues with using ways in the stop list, and (d) just adds to the
complication, since it won't be universally adopted

Richard