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

Jerry Clough - OSM sk53_osm at yahoo.co.uk
Sun Dec 12 13:35:58 GMT 2010

Odd, this, as I can immediately think of the opposite use case: several marked 
bus stops, but the buses stop at random positions over about 100m of road 
depending on how many other buses are present. Individual buses serving the same 
routes will stop in completely different places (sometimes two or more buses 
serving the same route will be present at the stop).

Please stop referring to the current widespread practice of highway=bus_stop 
mapped at the pole as 'old': in doing so you are instantly raising the hackles 
of those who have spent time on the ground mapping, rather than writing 
proposals on the wiki. 

For all I know the various discussions and proposals may have some value, but I 
find the initial tone off-putting, lacking respect and overly confrontational. 
It is not a good route (;-)) to building consensus. By far and away the best 
approach is to map a specific area, and show how it really adds value to the map 
and to a range of data consumers (not just a pet public transport router). If it 
really is better than what exists you'll get people using it: telling people 
they're stupid, which is the basic tone of many messages to this list and 
discussions on the wiki is less likely to be successful.

From: Dominik Mahrer (Teddy) <teddy at teddy.ch>
To: Public transport/transit/shared taxi related topics 
<talk-transit at openstreetmap.org>
Sent: Fri, 10 December, 2010 15:31:50
Subject: Re: [Talk-transit] Proposed Feature - RFC - Public Transport

Think of a terminal bus station somewhere in the center of a city. Four bus 
lines end here. One platform of 50m. The four lines stop always at the same 
position (line 1 is first,..., line 4 is last). Only one pole for all buses. 
Where do you place your tags? Or how do you tell where to wait for bus number 4? 
At the pole that is 40m away from the stop position?

It is up to you to use a new schema, or not if you dislike.

I usually do not map already mapped routes/stations again, so I do not have to 
drop an original node. But when I map a new station I map stop position AND 

On 10.12.2010 14:51, Richard Mann wrote:
> Dominik/Teddy
> Please could you explain what situation do highway=bus_stop /
> highway=platform / railway=platform not cover already, that requires
> public_transport=platform to be added to the list? If you're not
> intending to deprecate, then you're just adding complexity.

highway=platform is for buses/nonrail
railway=platform is for train/tam/rail
What should be used if there are buses and trams at the same station?

I do not plan to replace existing tags with highway/railway=public_transport, 
but I will tag unmapped platforms with public_transport=platform. If so this can 
be done with a bot.

highway=bus_stop is used different. Sometimes as stop position, more often as 
platform/pole. See 

The meaning of how highway=bus_stop should be used differ. It can not be 
replaced easily with a new public_transport tag.

> Also I think you need to make a clearer case for
> public_transport=stopping_position. You claim it's needed for routing
> - but routers currently seem to manage without.
> The existing tags can cover the simpler situations (starting with a
> single node, then two or three nodes, then the two nodes become
> platform ways/areas), and still used for the more-complicated
> situations (>2 platforms / bus_stops), just grouped into a relation
> (and at which point you might well drop the original single node).
> Richard
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-transit mailing list
> Talk-transit at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit at openstreetmap.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-transit/attachments/20101212/067853aa/attachment.html>

More information about the Talk-transit mailing list