[Talk-transit] Proposed Feature - RFC - Public Transport
Dominik Mahrer (Teddy)
teddy at teddy.ch
Mon Dec 13 19:56:47 GMT 2010
On 12/13/2010 03:56 PM, Richard Mann wrote:
>> 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?
> railway=platform ways/areas replace the station nodes in the ordered
> list of stops
You want to use railway=platform for relations for trains. Why creating
a new tag highway=tram_stop instead of railway=platform?
Why replacing the stop position for trams/trains with the platform/pole
>> 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?
> If the platform breaks into distinct sections (such as the A-E on DB
> main stations or U-Z on SNCF) then there could be distinct
> nodes/ways/areas for each section. You might have the whole length of
> the platform as an area, with subsections (or groups of subsections)
> done as ways, so you can choose which to make a member of the
> relation. Which mainline service uses which platform can be a bit
> variable, so you may just end up using the station node anyway.
In some (rare?) cases splitting the platform into several ways/areas
would make sense. I know a hand full of practical examples.
I read implicitly that you agree to use the platform instead of the pole
for relations, correct?
>> 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
> I wouldn't tag it. It isn't tagged at the vast majority of bus stops,
> so data users are going to have to find a way of coping with it not
> being marked, and will probably ignore any that are marked. I also
> wouldn't include the stop position in a relation unless it's the only
> node available.
For those thousands of highway=bus_stop tagged beside the way
(interpreted as pole) this is the best way to handle. Those tagged on
the way should be interpreted as stop position.
I do not want to obligate someone to tag a stop position. Adding a stop
position would close an incompleteness compared to trams/trains too. And
there are mappers they think it is useful/necessary. Those mappers tag
it actually with public_transport=stop_position+bus=yes and/or
highway=bus_stop on the way. What do you suggest those mappers? Removing
More information about the Talk-transit