[Tagging] public_transport=platform rendering on osm-carto

Paul Allen pla16021 at gmail.com
Wed Jun 20 21:10:40 UTC 2018

On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 7:43 PM, <osm.tagging at thorsten.engler.id.au> wrote:

> Everything you write is no different between PTv2 and the old tagging
> scheme.
> FIRST, all the stops, in order. THEN, all the ways that make up the route,
> in order.
> As far as I’m aware, there hasn’t been a route tagging scheme before that
> mixes the stops into the route before.
> The actual PTv2 proposal documents that quite well:

OK, at least that is clearer than the working pages of the wiki.  But I'm
still having difficulty comprehending one thing.
I have an actual route, and I'll designate segments of ways with letters
(and simplify it a lot).  Platforms are mapped
but stop positions aren't (somebody who thinks they shouldn't be there
cleaned up after me).

    A  B  C  D  E  F........ M  N  B  C  D  E  F

Starts at A, terminates at F.  It repeats B C D E F at the end of the
route, but doesn't pass A.  There's a stop at A (start
of the route). There's a stop at C which is ignored the first time the bus
passes it but is stopped at (on request) the
second time (and appears in the timetable). It stops at F both times.

So the stops are going to be the ones at  A C F ... C F, in that order, in
the relation.

It's kinda hard for me to figure out what's going on from the relation, and
I know the route.  Without stop positions
it seems to me to be a lot of work for a router to figure out as well.  I
think a typical consumer using the query tool
would be completely baffled by the relation info returned.  But you're
telling me this is correct?  If so, that's what
I'll do.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20180620/b351f40c/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list