[Tagging] Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

[Joseph Eisenberg]

If you read the talk page of the proposal,it’s clear that the stop_area
relations are optional. I actually think that needs to be further clarified
in the main text.

I’m not certain if any database users actually manage stop_area relations
for public transit?

The ref can go on just the highway=bus_stop as a few other people and the
proposal suggest.

The highway=platform way is like a highway=footway of building=roof which
you might also add to the same vicinity to represent real features: it’s a
real, physical feature; an elevated area for passengers to board or alight.

The bus stop node represents the bus service and is always present whether
or not there is a physical platform, so it’s what you add to the route
relation in the proposal. It looks like this is already fairly common
practice.

Joseph

On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 1:32 AM Markus <selfishseahorse at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 at 13:52, Joseph Eisenberg
> <joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Agreed, there are enough tags for public transport already. I don't
> > think anything new is needed.
>
> My idea was actually to replace the misnamed public_transport=platform
> with public_transport=stop and to abandon highway=bus_stop and
> railway=tram_stop as well as public_transport=stop_position. All in
> all that's not more tags, but three less.
>
> Besides, as there were only one element per stop (even if the stop is
> a platform), public_transport=stop_area would only be necessary at
> stations.
>
> > If there is a platform where buses stop, then there's a bus stop, and
> > a platform. The platform is a physical feature, and I believe it would
> > still be a highway=platform even if the bus service were discontinued.
>
> I agree, it remains a highway=platform even if it's not operated
> anymore. But when it's operated, the platform actually represents a
> bus stop.
>
> > [...]
> >
> > The ref= should go on whatever of the two features that it actual
> > refers to: if it's on the bus stop sign or pole, it probably
> > represents the bus stop, but it might actually refer to the physical
> > platform and each different bus route that stops there might have a
> > different ref=* for that bus stop.
>
> The number in my example refers to the place where people wait for the
> buses, for numbers 1–7 this is the platform and for number 8 it is the
> place on the sidewalk. So, where should i put ref=1 ... ref=7
> according to you? On highway=platform, on highway=bus_stop or on both?
> And which one of them should i add to the route relation? It were a
> lot easier if there were just one object.
>
> > Perhaps sometimes you'll have to add the ref=* to both the stop and
> > the platform, but that's ok. The public_transport=stop_position +
> > =platform + stop_area idea often leads to putting the same ref on 3
> > different objects.
> >
> > In all other situations (rail platforms, regular bus stops without an
> > elevated platform, tram stops etc), the Refined_Public_Transport
> > proposal is clearly simpler than using public_transport=* tags, so it
> > looks like a good option.
>
> I find that proposal to be inconsistent and unnecessarily complex.
> Inconsistent because sometimes highway=bus_stop has to be mapped
> beside the road and at other times on the road, and because sometimes
> there is one highway=bus_stop for one stop and at other times there is
> one highway=bus_stop for two stops. And unnecessarily complex because
> it not only requires a stop_area, but also a stop_area_group. In
> contrast, my suggestion would only require stop_area's at stations.
>
> Regards
>
> Markus
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> 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/20190801/f5ba1246/attachment.html>