2016-07-13 8:39 GMT+02:00 Paul Johnson :
> I would advise against this; and instead use a separate relation for each
> direction of a route as it greatly simplifies maintenance of the route.
+1. Some people also add a third relation (route master) to group the two
(plus eventual variants).
Ch
On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 5:57 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> 2016-07-13 8:39 GMT+02:00 Paul Johnson :
>
>> I would advise against this; and instead use a separate relation for each
>> direction of a route as it greatly simplifies maintenance of the route.
>
>
>
>
> +1. Some people also add a t
On 13 July 2016 at 12:57, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> +1. Some people also add a third relation (route master) to group the two
> (plus eventual variants).
This should be considered mandatory.
--K
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
On 13-07-16 22:35, Kieron Thwaites wrote:
On 13 July 2016 at 12:57, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
+1. Some people also add a third relation (route master) to group the two
(plus eventual variants).
This should be considered mandatory.
What is also done in the Netherlands is grouping all the r
Hi all,
(Cross-posting to tagging and talk-gb-london.)
I've been looking at
type=public_transport
public_transport=stop_area
relations in Transport for London.
*First question: operator. *Should this be "Transport for London" or the
actual operator? TfL owns and retains branding control, but t
On 14 July 2016 at 01:45, Bjoern Hassler wrote:
>
> First question: operator. Should this be "Transport for London" or the
> actual operator? TfL owns and retains branding control, but technically it's
> franchised to London Overground Rail Operations (LOROL) and KeolisAmey
> Docklands Ltd., who a
