Hi Jo, so there's weren't any others that expressed interest in a mapathon.
However, I'd be very happy for us to speak and exchage ideas? Bjeorn On 14 May 2017 at 14:35, Jo <winfi...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Aun, > > Do you know about JOSM's public transport assistant plugin? > > Maybe we should set up a weekly online meeting, where everyone with an > interest in public transport can come to get hands on explanations and > where we can discuss these topics? > > I just figured out how to do Hangouts on Air. Which CEST evening would > suit most people around here? On Tuesdays I have time starting at 20h, On > Fridays it could be earlier. Saturday or Sunday evening are fine with me as > well. > > Polyglot > > 2017-05-14 14:18 GMT+02:00 Aun Johnsen <li...@gimnechiske.org>: > >> Jo >> >> Thanks for the clarification, yeah I know that warnings in JOSM, >> specially those with Info level, often can be ignored. As I am working with >> lines in a metropolitan area with at least 7 different operators, I guess >> having tidy relations make data more easy to validate. I have until now >> focused on making master_route relations for lines with more than 1 route >> relation, but can start looking into completing all routes with a >> master_route as my work gets more completed. There is still a lot to do >> with more than 500 lines + variations. >> >> Aun Johnsen >> >> > On May 12, 2017, at 18:16, tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote: >> > >> > Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 21:12:14 +0200 >> > From: Jo <winfi...@gmail.com> >> > To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" >> > <tagging@openstreetmap.org> >> > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Ordering of routes, possible mapathon? Was: Re: >> > rail routes: how are platforms and stops associated (rail >> question 2) >> > Message-ID: >> > <CAJ6DwMDovPVHrE3wVPxa66tT7_jP736fynoGBFoDRvViBEZb5w@mail.g >> mail.com> >> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" >> > >> > Hi Aun, >> > >> > JOSM's validator warnings are just that, warnings. Some of them can be >> > safely ignored. Of course if the route_master relation doesn't really >> add >> > information, I'd say it's fine to omit it. >> > >> > Here are some examples: >> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3614368/history >> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3612781/history >> > >> > The tags on both relations are quite different. I like to have both of >> > them, because I want to compare with data from the operators and then >> it's >> > good to have all of them "behave" in the same way. The route_master to >> > describe the line, the route relations to describe the itineraries for >> all >> > the variations. >> > >> > We have a few more of those with only one route relation. For example >> the >> > one going in the other direction on our ring road or some school buses >> for >> > students that only go from the station to the campus on Sunday evening. >> On >> > Friday they have enough possibilities with the standard offered lines. >> > >> > >> > Polyglot >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Tagging mailing list >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
