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

Joseph Eisenberg joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com
Fri Aug 2 13:47:39 UTC 2019


> "only need one element even if there is a platform"

See "One Feature, One OSM Element" - separate feature tags should not
be added to the same database object, if at all possible.

This is particularly a problem with platforms, which can be mapped as
nodes, lines or areas. That means a way could be a line or an area, so
you need to add "area=yes" to avoid ambiguity.

But bus stops, tram stops, trains stations and bus stations can only
be a node or an area. This means that database users (esp using
osm2pgsql) will treat these features as polygons when mapped as closed
way.

To avoid ambiguity, don't add bus_stop or tram_stop to a
highway=platform or railway=platform line or area please. The platform
is a physical feature, and still exists even if the bus or tram
service is discontinued. The bus_stop or tram_stop node represents a
place a tram stops or bus stops and where the passengers should wait
to get on the vehicle, so changing it to an area isn't beneficial.

I also consider "bus, tram and train stations could all be tagged
alike" as a disadvantage since it would lead to ambiguity, like how to
deal with a station object tagged =station with bus stops, tram stops
and a railway platforms. It's better if mappers are aware which main
feature they are tagging, since that's what will have to be handled by
database users.

Hence, your option 1. (public_transport=stop) advantages are both
disadvantages in this view, which means option 3 (using the original
tags like bus_stop, tram_stop) is the best. It also requires the
fewest tags at most places - a bus stop almost always needs 1 tag, and
these are by far the most common public transit features in the
database.

On 8/2/19, Markus <selfishseahorse at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, August 2, 2019, yo paseopor <yopaseopor at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> The only negative point for public transport v2 scheme was the
>> no-deprecation of the old scheme to avoid duplicities (surely was done
>> this
>> to don't uncomfort people)
>> Salut i transport p├║blic (Health and public_transport)
>> yopaseopor
>>
>
> IMHO the main problems are the unnecessary public_transport=stop_position,
> which complicates mapping a lot, and the misnamed
> public_transport=platform, which means waiting area (and may or may not
> have platform), but was intended to also replace railway/highway=platform,
> which means a real platform (a raised structure).
>
> I still see these solutions:
>
> 1. To rename public_transport=platform into public_transport=stop (or
> public_transport=waiting_area) and to abandon
> public_transport=stop_position as well as the PTv1 tags. This would have
> the advantage that bus, tram and train stations could all be tagged alike,
> that tram and bus stops would only need one element even if there is a
> platform (because railway/highway=platform + public_transport=stop could be
> combined) and that public_transport=stop_area were only needed at stations.
> Besides, new transport modes could later be added easily.
>
> 2. Same as 1, but public_transport=platform is not renamed (only
> public_transport=stop_position and PTv1 tags are abandoned). Advantages:
> same as 1; disadvantage: the misnamed public_transport=platform remains.
>
> 3. To abandon PTv2 tags, but to stick to PTv2 routes and to map
> highway=bus_stop/railway=tram_stop beside the road/rails ("Stockholm
> scheme"). Disadvantages: the same that are the advantages of 1.
>
> It were nice if we could (finally) agree on one solution to solve the
> current public transport mess. :)
>
> Regards
>
> Markus
>



More information about the Tagging mailing list