[Talk-transit] Should railway station relations includebusstops?

Frankie Roberto frankie at frankieroberto.com
Thu Sep 10 12:38:50 BST 2009

2009/9/10 Peter Miller <peter.miller at itoworld.com>

> Let's use Waterloo as a test case for OSM. Bank/Monument would also be
> useful because it is given as an example in the NaPTAN documentation. Lets
> also focus on the stations given in the IFOPT documentation examples.
> Incidentally Waterloo is used as an example thoughout the IFOPT
> documentation.

Okay, so I've just added two new relations for Waterloo (so now it has 5):

* railway station = http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/238792
* tube station = http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/238793

I had to add stop nodes for the tube lines (didn't seem to be any existing
ones).  They are all tagged as role=stop on the relation. I'm not sure what
tag we should be using on the nodes themselves. Sometimes we've used
railway=station (which means they all display on the renderers), sometimes
we've used railway=halt (as was originally proposed in
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/unified_stoparea, but I
think this is wrong as railway=halt has historically been used for request
stops). I've experimentally used railway=stop for Waterloo - these could be
a good way of distinguishing stopping points from the 'station' nodes that
are used in the simpler schema).

Guess we also need to add the platforms for Waterloo (Wikipedia says there
are 20), as well as some of the accesses (footbridges, etc).


Frankie Roberto
Experience Designer, Rattle
0114 2706977
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-transit/attachments/20090910/118f1f45/attachment.html>

More information about the Talk-transit mailing list