This mailing list has been migrated to Mailman 3. This archive will no longer be updated. Messages after 1 February 2020 are missing. Please use the new archive instead.
Diese Mailingliste wurde auf Mailman 3 umgestellt. Dieses Archiv wird nicht mehr länger aktualisiert. Nachrichten nach dem 1. Februar 2020 fehlen. Bitte benutze das neue Archiv.
Hi everyone, Sorry, I forgot this. My idea is the following. There's two main points that this suggestion tries to allow, in addition to what has been proposed a) We would not want other systems just to be defined as "below" the railway one. For example, I'd like to see an important underground interchange station earlier [1] than some unimportant regional train stop; and some small underground station should be shown later than an important bus node. b) We need rather identical schemes for several systems: Airports, long distance trains, long distance buses, regional trains, regional buses, suburban rail systems, fast urban rail systems (underground), slow urban rail systems (tram), (sub)urban bus systems. Yes, some of them lie outside the scope of openrailmap, but there's the same problem when rendering a transit map, so we should develop a solution that fits them all. Thus, my suggestion: For each of these "levels", there are four "importances" values: - important node (n+) - secondary node (n-) - important stop (s+) - secondary stop (s-) So for every station, we would store how important it is within every "level" of traffic it is served by. [2] We'd have to think of nice words for the importance values, but for demonstration I'll use the n/s +/- codes I noted above. importance:longdistance = s+ importance:regional = n- importance:suburban = n+ Examples: For the "long distance" level, we'd have: Frankfurt: Hbf (n+), Süd (s-), Airport (s+) Berlin Hbf (n+), Gesundbrunnen (s+), Wannsee (s-) Mannheim (n-), Heidelberg (s+), Darmstadt (s-) München (n+), Nürnberg (n-) Köln: Hbf (n+), Messe/Deutz (s+) Bielefeld (s+), Gütersloh (s-) Freiburg (s+), Offenburg (s-) For "regional traffic", we'd have: Berlin Hbf (n+), Ostbahnhof (s+), Potsdamer Platz (s-), Südkreuz (s+), Spandau (n-) (I don't know other regions well enough) Advantage - because only the importance within one level has to be considered, only four (maybe even three) importance values will do, and it is quite easy to define which one fits. - maps can decide how to rank the importance values of the different levels. For example, I'd say an important suburban traffic node is to be ranked higher than a secondary regional traffic stop. For example, Berlin Westkreuz is an important S-Bahn node, while Jungfernheide is a secondary regional traffic stop, thus Jungfernheide can be displayed later than Westkreuz. Disadvantages: - We'd have to define and store several values for most stations. - And these are mostly redundant: Of course an important long-distance stop is also an important bus stop, etc. So maybe this level thing can be "compressed" into one thing, maybe not. Let's first discuss if it is a good model the way I suggested it. Marian PS: For me it's a lot more work to write this down in English in a way that it hopefully can be understood. Are there even non-germans on this list? (German as the language, not the country :) ) [1] earlier meaning "appears on a lower zoom level" [2] considering OpenRailwayMap, we have the additional problem that one station can be several ones technically. For example, this is the case at Berlin Hbf. Here we would want to first just display "Berlin Hbf", but later (when zooming further in) display labels for "Berlin Hbf (tief)", and the S-Bahn and U-Bahn stations.