Proposal talk:Route duration

=* Is there any reason why you aren't just using duration, without the route_? This could also be used for phyical things like aerialways. -- Fröstel 12:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC) duration as key name would invite disambuiguity in the usage, imho. There is no reason why you couldn't use route_duration on a physical thing like an aerialway (cablecars), but again imho, it would be better to define a route as well.

The way I envision the tag used is forinstance on a busroute which could have the routeduration between stops listed. Ferry routes showing the time taken for the crossing, etc. If you want to use it on a physicial item like the cablecars defined by aerialways keys, I'd say go ahead. But if a cablecar goes to more than stop, then it might be better to define the physical cablecarline with aerialway, and use an appropriate route tag for the segments between each stop. Then use the route_duration tag to define the time between each stop. That way we keep the physical vs not-physical division on the tags, making it far more logical to maintain and remember. Dutch 17:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

=* Should we agree on a common time-format like hh:mm ?

I'm using hh:mm at the moment, since that generally is universally understod. Dutch 17:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)