[Tagging] Documentation issues of PT tagging schemes (was: Re: Public Transport v3 — starting RFC)

Leo Gaspard osm-ml at leo.gaspard.io
Tue Jul 24 13:55:35 UTC 2018


My point of view, as a beginner in OSM who still hasn't understood how
PTv1 and PTv2 are supposed to work (and thus didn't read this specific
proposal, take this as generic comments on PT tagging in OSM):

 1. Beginners are already at a loss, introducing a third (!) tagging
scheme will just make things worse

 2. If I were developer of an OSM tool, I'd be facepalming as soon as I
saw the word “PTv3”

 3. What is *really* needed is a clarification of what PTv[12] actually
mean. This is first and foremost a documentation issue, not a tagging
scheme issue.

 4. If I understood correctly, it's possible to use PTv2 with as few
tags as PTv1, but noone really understands it because the documentation
is such a mess. So I think a proposal of “Clarification of the relative
importance of tags in Public Transportation tagging” would be great.

 5. Such a proposal would “just” improve the documentation for PTv2 and
erase completely any reference to PTv1 from the wiki (or move it to a
“historic tagging scheme, no longer to be used, but that could be
necessary to understand for consumers until the migration has ended”
section)

 6. I personally spent at least half an hour (didn't count) trying to
understand how to tag public transportation. After having tried to read
the wiki, I just ragequit. The *documentation* is the issue for public
transport, and adding a third tagging scheme will only make things worse.

 7. Once the documentation about PTv1 will have vanished and about PTv2
will be clear (and once the names PTv* will have disappeared to just be
called “PT tagging”, in order to be less frightening for the beginner),
*then* it would be interesting to discuss incremental modifications of
the PT scheme. I guess that's where the changes you're proposing for
“PTv3” (something that I think should not ever happen, would it be just
for its name) would be interesting to integrate.

 8. For my desiderata about the documentation, I think it should:
     1. Be simple to read
     2. Go from the simplest tagging elements to the most complex. For
example, if I understood correctly PTv2 (ie. likely not), something like:
         1. how to place public_transport=stop_position
         2. how to make a route relation
         3. how to make a master route relation
         4. how to add public_transport=platform for people who feel like it
     3. Fit in a single page (having to switch back and forth between
dozens of pages for PT is just impossible to do while keeping focus)
     4. Potentially, *at the end, once all important concepts will have
been explained*, link to pages of individual transportation methods
     5. Be written in a didactic style. Currently it's full of “There
was this for a long time, and also that and that, but that is made
possible by PTv2”. BUT WHAT SHOULD I DO? (sorry, that's not to be read
yelling, just my internal thoughts when reading this kind of
paragraphs). That's just not how we can make people do something, that's
just a way to mix up everyone's mind but the minds of people who
actively designed the scheme.
     6. Give instructions as for what to do when the information is
incomplete (eg. I saw a few stops but not the full route, but I've got a
picture of the list of stations, what should I do?)

Again, these are my 2¢ as a beginner who tried to understand the current
way of tagging PT and just didn't understand it enough to try actually
mapping with it. Also, obviously, I can say how I would want the page to
be, but I can't do it myself because I just didn't manage to understand
in a reasonable amount of time the PT tagging scheme. So I'll have to
rely on you (yes, thou who readeth me) to write it, sorry!


On 07/20/2018 10:48 PM, Ilya Zverev wrote:
> Hi folks,
> 
> As you might've noticed, in the past year there has been growing discomfort with the current Public Transport tagging schema. Of course, it brought order to our route relations, but also introduced a lot of redundant concepts. We've seen a couple proposals aiming to fix some of issues, but nothing stuck.
> 
> Please consider this new revision for the PT schema, which addresses most of the issues, while keeping as backward compatible as possible:
> 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Public_Transport_v3
> 
> I'd be happy to hear any suggestions. Next week, I'll be presenting it, among other things, during my talk "What's up with the public transport" at the State of the Map conference.
> 
> Thanks,
> Ilya
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> 



More information about the Tagging mailing list