Version tag for public transport relations

[simon04]

Currently, only the newer scheme for mapping public transport relations is in the presets. This causes the validator to validate all public transport route relations according to this scheme, generating many confusing false-positives (see #8422).

Since the renderer/… support for the new scheme is still limited, I think JOSM should still support the old scheme.

I propose to have both public transport route mapping schemes in the presets (in order to have a working validator and assist mappers in both cases). To distinguish them I propose to add a public_transport:version=1 or public_transport:version=2 tag. Since there's no clear semantic criterion to decide the scheme, I'm sure that renderers and other tools benefit from this information. Anyway, we'd get around the validation problems.

What do you think?

[Don-vip]

It could do the trick. I honestly don't what the best solution is, but you're the first one to propose a solution, so I'll follow your decision :)

[Don-vip]

We will soon start stabilization I propose to treat all "public transport/route" tickets in 14.02.

[simon04]

In 6813/josm:

see #9545 - Add public_transport:version=1/2 to older/newer public transport relation preset to avoid false positives in role checks

[aceman]

OK, since some days all route=bus relations in my city are warned about by the validator. Does this mean we need to add "public_transport:version=2" tag to all the relations so that they get validated properly?

I think this is good information to be added, we had a conversion from old scheme to new one just recently. But as it is an undocumented tag, and the validation change now hits users, at least a comment here could state what needs to be done by mappers. Thanks.

[simon04]

In 6863/josm:

see #9545 fix #9725 - Validator: add warning "Route scheme (public_transport or legacy) is unspecified"

[Zverikk]

Has this tag passed proposal stage on OSM wiki? Why it is suddenly required?

The proposal was approved THREE years ago, so it is not "new one" anymore.

[stefanct]

I second Zverikk's concern. Also, what about routes that support both schemes? IMHO it is currently more or less required to tag both schemes, e.g. highway=bus_stop and public_transport=platform + bus=yes to get decent support in most applications.

[skyper]

Replying to stefanct:

I second Zverikk's concern. Also, what about routes that support both schemes? IMHO it is currently more or less required to tag both schemes, e.g. highway=bus_stop and public_transport=platform + bus=yes to get decent support in most applications.

Third one. I have a lot of bus_stops which are used with both schemes ATM. As it will years or many new expert mappers to change all of them we will need to handle this mixed situation for some time.

[Klumbumbus]

See also #10398