>> Add relations and direction of ways (forwards, backwards) and it's a very time consuming task to upgrade v1 to v2, especially if bus routes change.
> Do you mean 'forward' and 'backward' roles? I think what was meant was that in v2 you want to create a forward relation and a backward relation, then place the two under a route master relation. Under v1 you already had the forward/backward roles within just one relation. On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 8:04 AM, Selfish Seahorse <selfishseaho...@gmail.com > wrote: > > Add relations and direction of ways (forwards, backwards) and it's a > very time consuming task to upgrade v1 to v2, especially if bus routes > change. > > Do you mean 'forward' and 'backward' roles? They aren't needed because > there is one route relation per direction. Thus 'forward' and > 'backward' roles shouldn't be used in PTv2 route relations. [^1] > > [^1]: <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/ > Public_Transport#Route_direction.2Fvariant> > > > On 29 March 2018 at 00:30, James <james2...@gmail.com> wrote: > > on top of that documentation is not clear atleast when I was trying to > learn > > how to tag bus routes. The only way I understood was a google hangout > video > > on youtube(OSM US?) showing how they tagged it. > > > > Add relations and direction of ways (forwards, backwards) and it's a very > > time consuming task to upgrade v1 to v2, especially if bus routes change. > > > > ID is not the greatest too for the job either, so not everyone will spin > up > > JOSM to edit bus routes > > > > On Wed, Mar 28, 2018, 6:21 PM Selfish Seahorse, < > selfishseaho...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> > >> > In my opinion, PTv2 is too complicated, time-consuming and delicate, > ... > >> > >> Sorry, I've meant inefficient, not time-consuming. > >> > >> > >> On 29 March 2018 at 00:13, Selfish Seahorse <selfishseaho...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> >> Many people were involved creating those tags, they are well > understood > >> >> and discriminate the features they describe in a thoroughly > documented and > >> >> plausible way. > >> > > >> > Apparently these tags aren't that well understood: I rarely encounter > >> > a PTv2 route that doesn't have at least one tagging error or isn't > >> > otherwise broken. And quite often I find public_transport=platform > >> > ways even though there isn't a physical platform. > >> > > >> > In my opinion, PTv2 is too complicated, time-consuming and delicate, > >> > and its tags aren't the most clear (e.g. waiting areas are called > >> > 'platform' even if there is no physical platform). > >> > > >> > But maybe the biggest problem, as Michael pointed out, is that > >> > renderers can't know if a public_transport=platform – the most > >> > important object for people looking for a public transport stop on a > >> > map – is served by a bus or a tram, because it isn't tagged with > >> > bus/tram/...=yes. > >> > > >> > I'm wondering why the limitations of PTv1 [^1] haven't been solved by > >> > keeping PTv1 tags, introducing route variant/master relations and > >> > mapping tram stops at the waiting area. > >> > > >> > [^1]: > >> > <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/ > Public_Transport#Main_problem_with_the_existing_schema> > >> > > >> > > >> > On 28 March 2018 at 16:21, "Christian Müller" <cmu...@gmx.de> wrote: > >> >>> Sent: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 16:53:28 +0300 > >> >>> From: "Ilya Zverev" <i...@zverev.info> > >> >>> To: tagging@openstreetmap.org > >> >>> Subject: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms > >> >>> > >> >>> Hi folks, > >> >>> > >> >>> A while ago I've made a proposal to deprecate some > public_transport=* > >> >>> tags: > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/ > Drop_stop_positions_and_platforms > >> >>> > >> >> > >> >> In your proposal you complain about subjectively felt things like > >> >> "history won't go away", but at the same time you are trying to > revert a > >> >> part of history itself - "the public_transport tags are seven years > old > >> >> now". Many people were involved creating those tags, they are well > >> >> understood and discriminate the features they describe in a > thoroughly > >> >> documented and plausible way. > >> >> > >> >> Just because a lot of deprecated tags have not vanished in favor of > the > >> >> new ones yet does not mean there is a preference on the deprecated > tags. A > >> >> lot of users and apps have adopted the new public_transport tags. > It simply > >> >> does not make any sense to do a rollback on these for the > observation of a > >> >> sluggish adoption/transition rate. > >> >> > >> >> The proposal has been long thought about and delivers, in itself, a > >> >> coherent way of tagging public transport infrastructure. It has > learned > >> >> from previous tags, it is thus a refinement of the previous > tagging. There > >> >> will be lots of people -unheared and not- that oppose breaking a > (slow > >> >> moving) transition process at this point in time. Just be patient > and give > >> >> it some more years. > >> >> > >> >> You could help and promote the adoption, instead of dilating it. A > lot > >> >> of rural area data has not been touched for years, waiting for you > to do > >> >> research and remapping efforts. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Greetings > >> >> cmuelle8 > >> >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ > >> >> 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
