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

David Peek davidapeek at googlemail.com
Mon Dec 13 01:17:32 GMT 2010


Can I just add, this seems to sum up most of my feelings towards this
discussion - if it can be called that.

On 12 December 2010 13:35, Jerry Clough - OSM <sk53_osm at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> 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).
>
Not sure about this, but it's not the main thrust of the message in my
opinion.

>
> 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.
>
Agreed. "Old" implies it has been replaced or is depreciated. That is
unhelpful given to my knowledge this is the case neither in theory or (more
importantly) in practice.

>
> 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.
>
As I implied further up, I don't think discussions is really an appropriate
word. Most of the messages seem to be of the "I am right, you are wrong"
variety. Hardly a good way to build consensus.
----
David.


>
> ------------------------------
> *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 platform.
>
>
> 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
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:highway%3Dbus_stop#Results_2010-10-27
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-transit/attachments/20101213/873f2e55/attachment.html>


More information about the Talk-transit mailing list