HTML instead of wiki markup?
I just wanted to make a minor change to this article/page, and when I began to edit the source, I was wondering why this article is written in HTML, unlike other articles which are written in MediaWikis markup language. Is this deliberately and should be kept like that, or would it be better to convert the markup? --DieLenaMaria 14:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- No, there is no reason to keep that. I used HTML initially because I simply don't know the details of the MediaMiki syntax. Feel free to convert that I you want. --User:Roland.olbricht 2011-11-14 22:56 (UTC)
- Well, I converted the main part from HTML to MediaWiki syntax. Some simple things to know: Paragraphs are seperated through empty lines. Emphasize and strong are marked with double/tripple tick-marks. List-items are marked with an asterix in the first column.
- You will find a short introduction in the help-panel of your edit-window
Gaps in itineraries are not necessarily physical gaps. If two highways share a node but were drawn in opposite directions then the plugin reports a gap. This is not a bug however unless the two highways are one-way streets. Just checking the head-to-tail property of two adjacent highways will report false errors. --Michael63 (talk) 20:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- If you set the roles properly, i.e. to "forward" or "backward" depeding on the direction in which the bus takes the route, then any remaining gap is (or should be) a physical gap. You can also check that against with the relation editor. If you find then still examples where the tool reports false positive, then it is a bug in the plugin. Please tell these cases such that I can fix the software. -- Roland
- Hi Roland, the roles forward and backward were only used in the PT1, if a bus used the way only in one direction. One of the most important concerns of Oxomoa and thus PT2 was to get rid of these roles and instead dividing the bidirectional route (one relation) of PT1 into two directions (relations) and use the correct order of the ways to know the direction. see User:Weide#Public_Transport_Versionen_1_und_2. Call it a bug or not. The problem is your editor shows unfortunately non-existing gaps with the vast majority of the existing PT objects. Further it adds unnecessary roles i.e. if the route is mirrored. Thus everybody who tries it, thinks it is buggy and does not use it. It is a pity that all your good work is unavailingly because of that. OSM really needs a PT-editor to get rid of the problems of numerious variants of mapping and help the not so experienced users. And you seem to me one of the few who is able to lay the foundation. -- Tirkon (talk) 07:04, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
- Some recent discussion about a possible Google Summer of Code project apparently caused some confusion.
- The public transport plugin would profit from a general rework, but it is still useful in its current state and produces valid public transport relations.
- In particular, no case is known to me where it caused actual damage.
- For that reason the warning sounds to me a little bit excessive. Please note that uppercase words usually indicate shouting. --Roland