[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

> 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.

> ------------------------------
> *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