[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Public Transport v3
joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com
Wed Mar 11 12:07:35 UTC 2020
> 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
Yes, that is a rather silly thing that has been added, since it was
noticed after the proposal that if you removed highway=bus_stop and
only had public_transport=platform, then you would have no way to know
it was a bus stop rather than a train platform.
So now some mappers advocate adding a second tag bus=yes, originally
only proposed for stop positions. But if the originally, more common
tag highway=bus_stop is already used, there is no need to add bus=yes.
- Joseph Eisenberg
On 3/11/20, Peter Elderson <pelderson at gmail.com> wrote:
> I get the impression that consensus and general adoption will not be
> reached during my lifetime.
> Good luck with it, I'm out!
> Vr gr Peter Elderson
> Op wo 11 mrt. 2020 om 12:13 schreef alan_gr <alangrant72 at gmail.com>:
>> 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
>> formed the impressions that they were required, and came to regret
>> so much time mapping both stop positions and platforms. At that time I
>> the main reference for how to map using PTv2 was the proposal page
>> 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
>> 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
>> "PTv2 with some exceptions", is there a single coherent reference for
>> is meant by "PTv2"?
>> Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
More information about the Tagging