[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Public Transport v3
music.kashish at gmail.com
Sun Mar 8 01:41:09 UTC 2020
08-Mar-2020 03:56:45 Joseph Eisenberg :
> > routes without fixed stops can easily be represented using only via points and stop positions
> I think you mean "bus stops" (or railway platforms), not
> "public_transport=stop_position", since those nodes are usually
> unnecessary, and are not added by most mappers for bus routes. Routing
> apps can easily calculate the location where the bus stops based on
> the location of the "highway=bus_stop" next to the way.
> Creating "via points" seems more cumbersome than adding the highway
> ways to the relation when the route is "hail-and-ride", especially
> since a via point would not represent a real-world feature in that
For such relations, I already have to create stop positions at the start and end of the route. Indeed, the PT Assistant validator pesters me to 🙂 From there, it's just a question of adding a few via points - still less work and more maintainable than adding all the ways of the route.
> I understand why user Stereo would like a clean, simple solution. But
> realistically, both mapping methods are going to co-exist (this is
> already the case).
> It is most likely to be accepted if the proposal does not attempt to
> call anything "deprecated" or force anyone to use the new mapping
That would be tempting, because it would mean a lot less work for us in the short term. However, I'm afraid of ending up like PTv2 -
1. It 'does not deprecate the old tags', use of the new tags is 'recommended but not mandatory'...whatever that means.
2. People with a preference for the old tags see that as an excuse to keep using them
3. Consumers see that as an excuse to not support the new schema, even after 8 years of people requesting it - https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/311
4. People who want to use the new tags have to use _both_ sets of tags 🤦♀️
5. Both sets of tags have to be documented, making the documentation more verbose than it might be.
They should coexist...for a transitional phase. But it has to be just that - a _transition_, not a permanent inconsistent mess.
Note that the manifestation of #4 here would be that ways would be included, whereas I'm trying to avoid mappers dealing with them at all - to deal with them would mean losing important maintainability benefits.
More information about the Tagging