[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Public Transport v3

alan_gr alangrant72 at gmail.com
Wed Mar 11 11:11:08 UTC 2020

John Doe wrote
> I don't understand why the critics of PTv2 seem to think stop positions
> are such a big deal - they are optional!

My memory of starting to map bus stops a few years ago is that it wasn't
clear from the documentation that stop positions are optional. I certainly
formed the impressions that they were required, and came to regret spending
so much time mapping both stop positions and platforms. At that time I think
the main reference for how to map using PTv2 was the proposal page itself,
now archived at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?oldid=625726.
That doesn't indicate that stop_position is optional (see "the Schema in
short", where stop_area is explicitly described as optional, but
stop_position is not).

It seems other wiki pages have since been edited to make this optionality
clearer. I notice that they also refer to adding bus=yes etc to platforms
representing bus stops, which was not part of the PTv2 proposal, but I guess
tries to deal with one of the issues that led people to prefer

Bringing this closer to the original topic ... if the proposal for PTv3 is
"PTv2 with some exceptions", is there a single coherent reference for what
is meant by "PTv2"? 

Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html

More information about the Tagging mailing list