[Tagging] rail routes: how are platforms and stops associated (rail question 2)

[Tijmen Stam]

On 12-05-17 23:44, Jo wrote:
> I think what I'm trying to say is: there are many more bus routes (and
> their variations) than train route relations to be mapped. If we insist
> that it has to be:
>
> stop_position
> platform
>
> so double tagging, I think I'll abandon and I'll understand that most
> people will never start mapping public transport as it is effectively
> too complicated.

That would be a shame.
In my view, I have no problem with mapping stop_positions and platforms, 
even though the old version (with just the highway=bus_stop) seems to 
work fine too.

> I'm working on automating it, during a second GSoC of code project now,
> but that is something that will always remain a burden. Duplication of
> tagging and the apparent need for adding information about stops twice
> to the route relations.

Very interested in that project.

> So my question remains: why can't we have NODES with all the details
> next to the road. These nodes in the route relations and have the
> stop_position, the platform way, the shelter, the waste_basket, the
> bench as extra items that go into a stop_area relation, preferably one
> per direction of travel ?

I have no answer to that. But there's no real necessity to convert to 
version 2 except your own drive to do so. IMHO, for most intents and 
purposes, a hybrid works just as well.


> I just spent another hour and 20 minutes converting 1 line from version
> 1 to version 2. The 'simple' way. It might have taken me 2 hours or more
> if everything had needed to be mapped double.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_R9cQ73YZp8

Video removed?


My main demotivator in the public transit mapping is, is that our main 
renderer (mapnik) won't cope with the public_transport version 2 scheme 
for some (seemingly simple) technical reason, i.e. it won't name 
platforms that are not a node tagged with highway=bus_stop.

Tijmen/IIVQ