I specially agree with Ilya here:
linking stop positions and platforms via relation with a station: if the > station is mapped as an area, this shouldn’t be needed, as there’s already > a spatial link > Oh come on, we're talking about underground stations. A spatial link will get you all the bus platforms overground. why are tracks optional for route relations? Isn’t that in contradiction > with the generic route relation definition? Shouldn’t this become a > different type of relation if it isn’t about an explicit route anymore? > In my opinion, tracks should be optional for all public transport route relations, but let's start with rapid transit routes, when most of the time you don't see tracks, because they are underground. Mapping what you don't see and cannot check on the ground is questionable. As a casual mapper, not endorsed by any company or institution, my initial objections against Ilya proposal were based on the difficulty to map "what is on the ground" when you don't have access to the ground. The proposal allows casual mappers link entries with stations, stations in a route, before someone with enough qualification/disclosure access can make a detailed map of underground areas where carrying teodolytes or gps repeaters or simply taking shoots could raise up anger from security personnel. Yours, José.
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
