[Talk-transit] Proposed Feature - RFC - Public Transport

Michał Borsuk michal.borsuk at gmail.com
Sat Dec 11 14:32:11 GMT 2010

On 11 December 2010 15:08, Dominik Mahrer (Teddy) <teddy at teddy.ch> wrote:

> 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.

How often is there just a pole? Quite often. Does the existence of other
types of bus stops justify the addition of a new tag? Yes, if it's not too
complicated, and does not break compatibility. The idea with a platform does
not match either.

I do use platforms, but at larger termini and transfer points, where there
are indeed more than two platforms, and it's important to have them
labelled. On a street with one bus stop in each direction it is not possible
to confuse anything.

> And by the way: What physical thing is represented by railway=tram_stop?

I don't deal with trams.

>     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?

Points on the way do not represent bus stops' location.

>  Imagine that you're not German.
> I do not have to imagine this, I am not German.
> Your beginners version:
> highway=bus_stop beside the way
> highway=platform beside the way

One of those, of course. Not both.

> Oxomoas beginner version:
> public_transport=stop_position on the way
> public_transport=platform beside the way

Too complicated, too much work:
1) it is not compatible with what's being used
2) platform is not a node, but a line, requires more work

What does it really give? How is it better?

> Where is the difference in effort?

Explained above.

> Whatever proposal/schema you take (old/unified/oxomoa/stop place): Nothing
> of the tags is a *must*. Everything is optional.

The point is to have a sensible system that can be shown to beginners. A
Wiki page with a clear system, that is easy to grasp, and not the usual
bullshit about multiple-level B-Tree complicated relations.

> 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
> schema.

My problem is the lower level, not the upper level. This is the problem with
oxomoa: that  by doing complicated things well, it messes up easy things.
Oxomoa is centered around the quality of itself, while a good system would
be centered around ease of use for the most frequently used tags, and then
it would bother with crazy lines that loop somewhere in the forest.

Whenever I criticize Oxomoa I hear the same silly argument: "but in my
Siedlung there's a bus that does such a complicated thing...". So what? Who
cares? This is OSM, not a competitor to hafas. We show lines where they are,
and not how they go. (If you wonder why, I can elaborate on the difficulty
of storing data in hafas, I know it from the inside. It would be practically
impossible as of today to transfer this data completely to OSM. And


>  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.

I am not sure if I know what "the old system" is. Maybe we actually
criticize the same thing. I'd do it this way: highway:bus_stop for each bus
stop, and then the bus stops are added to each line (relation) that stops
there. Nothing more is needed from the point of view of even rich future
applications in OSM. There is the info where the bus stop is, there's the
line, if we ever want to link OSM with timetables (as I am planning), then
we have everything we need.

>     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.

Yes, my misunderstanding.

>     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.

Would you be so kind and withdraw from the accusation that the reason behind
the resistance is the unwillingness to convert the existing system?

Best regards, mit freundlichen Grüssen, meilleurs sentiments, Pozdrowienia,

Michał Borsuk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-transit/attachments/20101211/ab613b41/attachment.html>

More information about the Talk-transit mailing list