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

[ant]

Hi,

On 27.01.2011 10:49, Richard Mann wrote:
> I think we've got three broad decisions:
>
> 1) Whether the use of stop area / group relations should be
> a) widespread
> b) exceptional

b

> 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?)

> 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!)

cheers
ant