[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Public Transport v3

Alan Mackie aamackie at gmail.com
Mon Mar 9 08:10:20 UTC 2020

On Sun, 8 Mar 2020, 13:48 Dave F via Tagging, <tagging at openstreetmap.org>

> This proposal by Stereo is nothing really new.  Just a alternative to
> routing which has been around since relations were introduced.
> Definitely not 'PTv3'. The 'via' option appears almost as difficult to
> maintain as including ways.
> On 08/03/2020 01:41, John Doe wrote:
> >
> > 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.
> It means PTv2 tags aren't required as there are existing tags performing
> the same job.
> > 2. People with a preference for the old tags see that as an excuse to
> keep using them
> No. They are preferred because they simple to comprehend, accurate &
> abundant.
> > 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
> PTv2 <https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/311PTv2>
> isn't supported because it's not abundant (people get bored of
> adding them after a couple weeks)
> > 4. People who want to use the new tags have to use _both_ sets of tags
> 🤦♀️
> No they don't. They can use just the original tags. PTv2 tags are pure
> duplication.
> > 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.
> The original tags are here to stay because they work. PTv2 is a
> *separate*, *independent* scarcer schema running in parallel that adds
> nothing over existing tags.
> It is only PTv2 which is the mess. Even those who conceived it are
> confused by it.
> DaveF

 Whenever I have considered adding things in a ptv2 compatible way I have
ended up confused and reverted to a simple highway=bus_stop. Ptv2  seems to
want imaginary unverifiable stop points and for you to add signs on poles
as "platforms" for reasons I could never fathom. Then of course even the
simplest route actually has to be two or more routes for some reason. All
of these seemed to have documentation spread across several different wiki
pages with no clear relationship to each other.

The new proposal seems to be an attempt to get back to the clarity of the
original system while throwing the baby away with the bathwater. In theory
a router could reconstruct a route from points, if it's simple enough, but
if we are going to do that then we may as well drop the route relation
completely and just put the list of services on the stop nodes where most
jurisdictions have them signposted. After all, we have just massively
increased the amount of data crunching by any consumer anyway, they may as
well start that process by doing a search for local refs and build their
own stop lists.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200309/a6616447/attachment.htm>

More information about the Tagging mailing list