[Tagging] new role for route relations: reverse

Tue May 29 10:29:48 UTC 2018

There are some bus routes in my region where the bus needs to reverse into a narrow road even with passengers aboard, and more frequently in case of minibuses, for example:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3174915

[https://www.openstreetmap.org/assets/osm_logo_256-cde84d7490f0863c7a0b0d0a420834ebd467c1214318167d0f9a39f25a44d6bd.png]<https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3174915>

Relation: ‪MTR Bus K66 (Long Ping → Tai Tong)‬ (‪3174915 ...<https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3174915>
www.openstreetmap.org
OpenStreetMap is the free wiki world map. Updated 朗業街 Long Yip Street and Wang Lok Street junction.

In the route, the bus need to turn left into Kiu Hing Road and reverse to the terminus.

Sent from Outlook.com

________________________________
From: Jo <winfixit at gmail.com>
Sent: 29 May 2018 03:38
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Subject: Re: [Tagging] new role for route relations: reverse

I have also mapped many routes with loops, lollipops/spoons where the same ways are traversed multiple times. But I had not encountered a route where the bus needs to do parts driving backwards. I think this is mostly avoided because it's (obviously) a dangerous maneuver. (and I would say especially if you have to do it multiple times per day)

Jo

2018-05-28 19:33 GMT+02:00 Johnparis <okosm at johnfreed.com<mailto:okosm at johnfreed.com>>:
Replying specifically to this point:

Sure, renderers and routers might cope with the bus going to point X and magically
switching its direction of travel by 180 degrees but it's a bit puzzling for data
consumers.  Does the bus go out of service there?  Is it a terminus?  Has the mapper
made a big mistake in the route?  Did some other mapper come along and
accidentally delete part of the route?  Etc.

I have mapped a fairly significant number of routes where exactly that happens. The bus enters a way and exits the way, traversing it twice. It seems to me to be nothing out of the ordinary.

But if this might really be a problem for consumers, you could add a description=* tag to the way rather than the note=* that I suggested. If this is the main reason for the proposed role, I would not be in favor of it. The second traversal is not really "reverse" in any sense. The traverses the way forward (south to north, say) the first time and the other direction (north to south) the second time. The traversals are consecutive. Totally normal in my view.

On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 6:09 PM, Paul Allen <pla16021 at gmail.com<mailto:pla16021 at gmail.com>> wrote:
On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 3:40 PM, Erkin Alp Güney <erkinalp9035 at gmail.com<mailto:erkinalp9035 at gmail.com>> wrote:
Does it have any stops in the street it reverses into?

Not that I've seen.  But if somebody asked to get off there I'm fairly sure that most of the
drivers would permit it.  And since it backs as far as a bench, I'm also fairly sure most
drivers would let somebody sat on the bench waiting for the bus to board there.

If not, it is not formally a part of the route and just a convention.

Yes, but without it the route involves a role called "magic_turntable."

If this were an end of route turnaround at a terminus then it's not mappable.  What
happens when passengers are not on board and the bus is technically out of service
are not part of the route.  But this is done with passengers on board in the middle of
the route.

Sure, renderers and routers might cope with the bus going to point X and magically
switching its direction of travel by 180 degrees but it's a bit puzzling for data
consumers.  Does the bus go out of service there?  Is it a terminus?  Has the mapper
made a big mistake in the route?  Did some other mapper come along and
accidentally delete part of the route?  Etc.

Unless having role=reverse is going to cause big problems for renderers or
routers I don't see any problem with having it.  I doubt it's going to get used
often, so it's not a problem regarding data storage.  But I could be wrong.

--
Paul

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging at openstreetmap.org<mailto:Tagging at openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging at openstreetmap.org<mailto:Tagging at openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20180529/4bc1645d/attachment-0001.html>