On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 7:43 PM, <osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au> wrote:
> Everything you write is no different between PTv2 and the old tagging
> scheme.
>
>
>
> FIRST, all the stops, in order. THEN, all the ways that make up the route,
> in order.
>
>
>
> As far as I’m aware, there hasn’t been a route tagging scheme before that
> mixes the stops into the route before.
>
>
>
> The actual PTv2 proposal documents that quite well:
>
OK, at least that is clearer than the working pages of the wiki. But I'm
still having difficulty comprehending one thing.
I have an actual route, and I'll designate segments of ways with letters
(and simplify it a lot). Platforms are mapped
but stop positions aren't (somebody who thinks they shouldn't be there
cleaned up after me).
A B C D E F........ M N B C D E F
Starts at A, terminates at F. It repeats B C D E F at the end of the
route, but doesn't pass A. There's a stop at A (start
of the route). There's a stop at C which is ignored the first time the bus
passes it but is stopped at (on request) the
second time (and appears in the timetable). It stops at F both times.
So the stops are going to be the ones at A C F ... C F, in that order, in
the relation.
It's kinda hard for me to figure out what's going on from the relation, and
I know the route. Without stop positions
it seems to me to be a lot of work for a router to figure out as well. I
think a typical consumer using the query tool
would be completely baffled by the relation info returned. But you're
telling me this is correct? If so, that's what
I'll do.
--
Paul
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
