[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Public Transport v3

Joseph Eisenberg joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com
Sat Mar 7 02:29:02 UTC 2020


I appreciate the proposal authors for helping to simplify mapping bus
routes.

I agree that in many cases it would be correct to only include the bus
stops or train platforms in the relation, especial for longer-distance
routes, where the bus or train might take several different routes
depending on traffic or other reasons

However, there are also public transit services where the bus can stop
anywhere along the route. This is the most common type of bus here in
Indonesia. In this case there are no fixed stops except for the 2 end
points, but the minibus follows the same streets and passengers can wave
their hand or request a stop anywhere along the route.

These routes, common in Asia, Africa and Latin America, should be mapped
just as a set of ways.

So, I support the idea of allowing mappers to just add the bus stops to the
relation when this is the most verifiable and easiest to maintain, but
there are some cases where this will not work, so it should still be
permitted to map the ways for non-fixed-stop services.

I believe the “Refined Public Transport” proposal has already suggested
this (mapping route relations as either just stops or just ways) and in
general that proposal has good ideas which might be considered:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Refined_Public_Transport

- Joseph Eisenberg

On Sat, Mar 7, 2020 at 8:23 AM Peter Elderson <pelderson at gmail.com> wrote:

> So, what about the idea to store the route in a separate route relation,
> then add it as a  optional member with role "route" to the PT relation?
> You will have simplicity at the routing level and completeness at the route
> level, without interference.
> Without all the platforms, stops and waypoints the route itself will be
> much easier to maintain. If no route member is present, the renderer can
> approximate using what's in the routing relation.
> Same goes for routers. They could use the route as present in the route
> member, or choose to ignore that and recreate a fresh route along the stops
> and other waypoints.
>
> Best, Peter Elderson
>
> > Op 6 mrt. 2020 om 23:52 heeft Andrew Harvey <andrew.harvey4 at gmail.com>
> het volgende geschreven:
> >
> > 
> > I think if people want to save the full route with way members, that
> should be allowed.
> >
> > If someone wants to do a first pass with just using waypoint nodes or
> just the stop_positions, I think that's fine too.
> >
> > So I'm against the proposal in the current form for this reason.
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/20200307/4a4b1605/attachment.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list