[OSM-talk] All the subway systems in the world

Ilya Zverev ilya at zverev.info
Sat Oct 7 13:09:36 UTC 2017


Hi Roland. I sense a lot of hostility in your message. This is actually the first time in my OSM experience that I see a call to (negative) voting in this list. Even weirder that the voting won't start for a week or so.

> Adding more contradictions and confusion in public transport mapping makes a too complex topic worse in terms of complexity.
Awesome: the page that tries to compile all the practices is making it worse and too complex. I wonder why nobody else have done it in six years since the proposal has been accepted.

> - The proposal conflicts with well-established mapping rules. The tag "layer" is explicitly not to use on railway stations <...>
Ah, I see. I missed your reply at the discussion page from the 5th. Sorry for that, I'll update the proposal shortly to reflect this.

> - The proposal conflicts with reality. It requires a tag "colour" on lines, but not all lines have a defined colour. Making colour required may lead mappers to add fictitious information.
To repeat my answer from the discussion page: "official transit systems have official maps, which usually have consistent colours. Do you know of an exception?"

Also, it's not hard to find an official subway map. You don't have to go outside for that.

> - There are already a couple of established mapping instructions, namely https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Simple_Indoor_Tagging
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Public_transport
> with details like
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:public_transport%3Dplatform https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OpenRailwayMap/Tagging https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OpenStationMap#Level_of_Details
Five pages, 22 screen for four of these and I guess 30 more for OpenRailwayMap. I am trying to make a six-screen reference. All the relevant links are still there.

> - The author actively avoids discussion: The proposal has been announced much later (2017-09-30) than it was opened (2017-09-23). It has not been announced at all on the relevant mailing list (talk-transit). Even on comments on the wiki discussion page, only part of them have been adressed.
Wait what.
The relevant mailing list for proposals is tagging@, and I announced the page on 2017-09-24: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2017-September/033580.html

I did not know about transit@ until you've mentioned it. Is it one of the major ones now, so everyone should know about it and be subscribed to it?

"Avoids discussion" — WTF.
The discussion page is 20 kilobytes, plus I answer everything in talk@ and tagging at .
The ONLY question not answered on the wiki discussion page is yours. I am sorry for that, as I said above, just missed it in the stream of other questions.

> All in all I suggest to retract the proposal and rather write a simple set of instructions based on the existing wiki pages, with the errors in this proposal then fixed.
That is what I did. I will not retract the proposal.

> I still do think that Ilya has good intent, and probably the intent was to have a documentation what maps.me and/or the "validator" recognizes. But making a wiki proposal is the wrong way to do so
Please tell of a correct way to document metro mapping, not through a wiki page.

Ilya


More information about the talk mailing list