[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Public Transport v3
joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com
Mon Mar 9 00:17:02 UTC 2020
> editors would have to take similar precautions with nodes. Not impossible, but it would take time to appear. Your scheme will be more fragile than the existing one, at least for a while.
Well yes, any change will take some work by the maintainers of editor
applications, so we should not make changes lightly.
But this should not prevent us from making a change which would make
things easier for mappers and might better represent reality.
Greater ease of mapping is a strong reason to consider changes to
- Joseph Eisenberg
On 3/8/20, Paul Allen <pla16021 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Mar 2020 at 11:45, Guillaume Rischard <openstreetmap at stereo.lu>
>> On ride_and_hail: in my experience, those are unambiguously definable by
>> points such as intersections or POIs. Drivers connect the dots with the
>> only possible path. If it’s ambiguous, you tell the drivers they always
>> have to go via village x or pass poi y – in other words, you add a via
> You are using a different (and somewhat illogical) version of "hail and
> ride" here.
> On a hail and ride section of a route, the route is predetermined and fixed
> but the bus will stop to pick up anywhere along it, not just at official,
> stops. You HAIL the bus with some sort of gesture, the bus stops, you get
> AND RIDE.
> What you're describing is a route which has optional stops: when you board
> the bus you say you want to get off at X and the bus takes an optional
> detour to go past X; if there is nobody on the bus who wants to stop at X
> then the bus takes its normal route which does not pass X. Anybody
> waiting at point X to hail the bus is going to be out of luck if there's
> nobody on the bus who wants to get off there. This cannot be described
> as hail and ride because you could wait all day at X hoping to hail a bus
> that never appears. It usually appears in timetables as "Stops at X
> by request" or some such.
>> Some ride_and_hail routes are only like that on sections, and this is
>> where I’d particularly like to have your ideas. Have nodes with roles
>> ‘ride_and_hail:start’ and ‘ride_and_hail:stop’?
> You'd have to have something like that. Which means it's starting to get
> What worries me about this scheme is that nodes are more fragile than ways.
> Major editors recognize when ways are part of a route relation and stop you
> doing some of the common things that would break the relation. For your
> scheme to be workable, editors would have to take similar precautions with
> nodes. Not impossible, but it would take time to appear. Your scheme will
> be more fragile than the existing one, at least for a while.
More information about the Tagging