[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
highway=bus_stop.

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