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

Warin 61sundowner at gmail.com
Sat Aug 3 07:38:21 UTC 2019

On 03/08/19 11:19, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> Yes, the only thing that needs to be changed is the documentation, in
> my opinion. We don't need more tags, and it's not even necessary to
> officially "deprecate" anything.
> Right now some pages suggest that a bus stop needs to be tagged
> highway=bus_stop + public_transport=platform + bus=yes at the location
> passengers wait, and that you also need a
> public_transport=stop_position + bus=yes next to this point (on the
> highway), and a type=public_transport relation with *=stop_area, which
> includes the 2 features, and maybe they all need a name or ref? Oh,
> and you need to make a type=route relation which includes at least one
> of these features, or maybe all of them, in addition to highway ways?
> That's 3 features with at least 10 tags, to define a simple bus stop,
> before you even make the route relation.
> But really all we need is highway=bus_stop + name=* or ref=* - 2 tags,
> to define a bus stop. And the route relation needs either the stops or
> the highways added (you could add both, but this isn't really
> necessary), plus maybe a ref, duration and interval, if known.

The relation needs both stops and ways.

Not every stop along a route may be used by service.

The simplest way that a router finds between 2 stops may not be the service route.

The stops don't need a name or ref .. but they could be handy.

The route relation does not need an operator, a name etc... but the name would be appreciated, and other tags could be handy too.

> More
> complex tagging is only helpful at interchange stations - and maybe it
> isn't even necessary there, if the routing application is developed
> well.
> It would be nice if we could present this situation as the recommended
> and sufficient method for mapping bus routes - which are by far the
> most common type of fixed-route public transport globally - especially
> for new mappers.
> The public_transport=* tags would still exist and still would be
> documented clearly on their own wiki pages, but the main features
> lists and the page Public Transport could make it clear that these are
> optional, not required.
> On 8/3/19, Daniel Koć <daniel at koć.pl> wrote:
>> W dniu 03.08.2019 o 02:28, Joseph Eisenberg pisze:
>>> Consider also how you would route someone from a amenity=cafe node in
>>> a building to a shop=* area in another building across the city, by
>>> car. You have to jump from the node to the nearest highway, follow the
>>> highways to the other side of the city, and then jump back to the
>>> other node. So any router than can handle automobile directions can
>>> also manage bus stops or tram stops or platforms at the side of the
>>> road, without needing anything other than highway or railway ways and
>>> platform or bus stop nodes.
>> I guess this is the example where this simple analogy fails:
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/334559271
>> The route for personal journey might be undefined on the ends (drivers
>> just use their eyes there), public transport routing is more strict.
>>> I wasn't able to understand enough of the link about updating transit
>>> features in Warsaw to see how the stop_position nodes were useful. I
>>> understand that some transit agencies provide data about stop
>>> positions, and that's the original reason that the stop_position nodes
>>> were created. There's no problem with keeping them in your city if you
>>> like them, but probably we shouldn't tell new mappers that they are
>>> needed, for example in developing cities around the world that
>>> currently lack any bus stops.
>> Sorry for asking, but you probably know this documentation quite good -
>> do we really tell people that every element of a public transport stop
>> is needed just because it's documented somewhere?
>>> The complexity of the current system, as described on the main pages
>>> in the wiki, can discourage mapping anything (for example, I've been
>>> discouraged from trying to add any of the minibus routes in my part of
>>> Indonesia, since it seemed so complicated to make so many features and
>>> routes).
>> So maybe documentation should be just cleaned? And if I understand you
>> wrong, could you describe what was your problem there?
>> --
>> "Pojechałam truizmem, ale mogę, bo jestem trochę pierdołą" [P. Potocka]

More information about the Tagging mailing list