[Talk-transit] Proposed Feature - RFC - Public Transport
Dominik Mahrer (Teddy)
teddy at teddy.ch
Sat Dec 11 14:08:28 GMT 2010
On 12/11/2010 09:26 AM, Michał Borsuk wrote:
> Many city and/or network public transport wiki pages in central
> europe recommend to use highway=bus_stop _on_ the way
> And they are wrong. Because according to OSM's principles, the object
> should be placed where it physically exists.
Depending of what highway=bus_stop should represent.
If it represents the pole/platform they are wrong.
If it represents the yellow zigzag line on the street they are right.
And by the way: What physical thing is represented by railway=tram_stop?
> I would like to approve a tagging schema that is clearly defined.
> ..but which is not against the principles of OSM.
What is against the principles of OSM in public transport proposal?
> Imagine that you're not German.
I do not have to imagine this, I am not German.
> Do you see how unnecessarily complicated
> Oxomoa's plan is? It covers very, very small details (read: they rarely
> occur), at the some time forcing much more work on simple (most often
> occurring) situations.
Your beginners version:
highway=bus_stop beside the way
highway=platform beside the way
Oxomoas beginner version:
public_transport=stop_position on the way
public_transport=platform beside the way
Where is the difference in effort?
If this is still too much effort, you can leave away one of them. I
guess you do. Sometimes I do either.
Whatever proposal/schema you take (old/unified/oxomoa/stop place):
Nothing of the tags is a *must*. Everything is optional. You can invest
as much effort in tagging you want. But the upper limit of
(unified/oxomoa/stop place) is much higher then in the old, very limited
> Au contraire, my fellow mapper, and it this discussion was *closed*.
Two years ago or so. I opened it again in 2010, because the underlaying
basics changed since then.
> There are as many bus stops near the road as there are out there in the
> field, because the resolution of the map is so detailed, that placing
> one dot on the road is not enough. Moreover, as far as I remember, North
> American system (contrary to Hafas), gives each physical stop place a
> different index number.
How do you want to map this with the old schema? You do not have a stop
place/stop position tag.
> The platform definitely is beside the way
> Where? Behind the corner? On the left? On the right? No, this is not
> detailed enough.
As you said: There where it physically exists.
> My understanding for those they have put hundreds of tags on/beside
> the way. They do not want to move them (in which direction ever).
> Do you have any other personal accusations towards other mappers?
This is not an accusation, this is the only plausible reason I heard
until now for not changing the old schema.
More information about the Talk-transit