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

Dominik Mahrer (Teddy) teddy at teddy.ch
Mon Dec 13 13:50:34 GMT 2010

On 12/13/2010 01:12 PM, Richard Mann wrote:
> But this doesn't work well when you have lines that loop at the ends
> (fairly common with bus services), because the two relations overlap
> (you have to make certain nodes members in both relations, and that
> starts crossing a complexity/maintainability threshold).

I see the problem with looping lines and I know several practical 
examples. Even hafas sometimes can not handle this correctly and if then 
this is usually solved that one stop is defined as the terminal stop. 
The stops before belong to the route to the terminal stop, the others to 
the route back. So in theory you have to change the bus at the terminal 
stop, in practice this is not the case.

> I think what we're edging towards is that expressing a tram stop as a
> single node isn't really enough. I think the open question is how tram
> stop pole nodes should be tagged, whether that affects
> highway=bus_stop, and how you deal with joint bus and tram stops.

I support that one node for a 40m long tram stop isn't really enough.

> My suggestion:
> 1) highway=bus_stop - nodes to mark bus stop poles and to be members
> of bus relations (can also be used for tram relations)
> 2) highway=tram_stop - nodes to mark tram stop poles and to be members
> of tram relations (can also be used for bus relations). Renderers may
> prefer not to render these (there will generally be a
> railway=tram_stop node to use instead). There are only 13 of these in
> the world according to taginfo, so adoption of this tag for this
> purpose is unlikely to annoy anyone too much.
> 3) railway=tram_stop - nodes to mark the centre of the tram stop area,
> in the absence of a stop area relation. Mostly for rendering/labelling
> purposes. Can be used as a member of uni-directional relations, if
> setting up highway=tram_stop nodes is viewed as too complicated.

This is constructive. Thanks for that.
May I ask you some questions about that?

railway=tram_stop and railway=halt are mainly used for the stop position 
of a tram/train. highway=bus_stop is the representation of the pole 
(current schema).

Adding highway=tram_stop as the representation of the tram pole 
eliminates the inconsistency between railway=tram_stop and 
highway=bus_stop. What do you suggest for trains?

Here in Switzerland we have up to 470m long trains (German ICE), so we 
have up to 470m long platforms with often two or more poles (or displays 
as a replacement) per platform. Does it make sense to map all 
poles/displays and to add them to the relation? Doesn't it make more 
sense to replace the pole(s)/display(s) with the platform for relation 
data to simplify things?

What do you suggest as the stop position for buses (as counterpart of 
railway=tram_stop and railway=halt)? Or would you leave this completely 


More information about the Talk-transit mailing list