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

yo paseopor yopaseopor at gmail.com
Sat Aug 3 18:34:40 UTC 2019

We need a new way of following the scheme. I think all the features are
needed: stop positions, platforms and stop area.Well , at first sight would
seem complicated...but if you want to map a big station you have to use a
complicated system. And this system when you know how it works it is fast
and easy to follow. Because all kind of public transport would be mapped in
the same way. If it is bus? bus=yes. If it is also tram? tram=yes

We should deprecate all kind of stuff for public transport who does not not
have the public transport tag itself. Because a platform has no sense if is
not for public_transport. No more highway=platform, railway=platform,
seaway=platform, river=platform. Forget about the environment: it is a
platform for public transport. And that's it.
Also we should deprecate all the highway=bus_stop (because you have
public_transport=stop_position ), al the halts in a railway, etc...And all
these kind of things would be only public_transport=stop_position.

With this system you can catch an airport and make it a
public_transport=stop_position, for the planes. It is a powerful scheme,
and you only have to know one key and four or five values. You will never
ever misspelled the writing of bus stop? bus_stop? stop_for_bus? for what?

We should use scalable and easy of tagging schemes, should we?

Salut i transport public (health and public transport)

On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 11:53 AM Jo <winfixit at gmail.com> wrote:

> For a few years now, I've been considering to make a proposal for mapping
> PT in a simpler way. I haven't done it because it's a lot of work and there
> will always be quite a few mappers who prefer the status quo.
> Anyway, I think we need 1 object which has all the properties of a stop as
> tags and which is used in the route relations. A single object per stop,
> preferably not 2 for each stop.
> That part I've been pushing it slowly all along.
> Regarding the itineraries, I think we should also start looking into how
> we can simplify that in such a way that maintenance becomes easier for the
> mappers.
> So what if a route relation would consist of an ordered set of stops and a
> link to another relation for the itinerary. This other relation contains
> only relations. Those relations contain the ways for a 'segment' or an
> 'edge'. It's these small relations that get broken occasionally when
> mappers split or combine ways. When this happens only those relations need
> to be fixed and the effect will be that all the itineraries that use them
> are fixed in one go.
> There is more 'indirection', which may seem more complex at first sight,
> but we can create tools to visualise the effect of the combined set of
> relations in JOSM and I guess it can be done in iD as well.
> As far as maintenance goes, this would simplify matters a lot.
> Let me know if you think it makes sense to start a proposal for this. The
> student who works on PT_Assistant this summer is laying the groundwork for
> going into this direction.
> Polyglot
> On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 11:33 AM Joseph Eisenberg <
> joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Re: > The relation needs both stops and ways
>> Sure, it's nice for rendering the have the ways, but it's not always
>> necessary.
>> There are 2 cases where you can only do one or the other
>> 1) Stops only: The buses don't always take the same route between
>> stops, but just take whatever way is fastest. This is common for
>> long-distance buses between towns, and in non-Western countries for
>> all sorts of buses. In this case, just the stops are needed.
>> 2) Ways only: the bus follows the same streets, but will stop
>> anywhere. This is the standard for all minibuses in Indonesia, and in
>> many other countries. In this case there are no bus stops, except at
>> the start and end of the route.
>> It's great to include both when possible, but I think it we should let
>> new mappers know that they can just start with stops or just start
>> with the ways, if that's all they know.
>> On 8/3/19, Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > 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]
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Tagging mailing list
>> > Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190803/3ab427d1/attachment.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list