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

Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxford at gmail.com
Mon Dec 13 22:35:40 GMT 2010

On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 7:56 PM, Dominik Mahrer (Teddy) <teddy at teddy.ch> wrote:
> You want to use railway=platform for relations for trains. Why creating a
> new tag highway=tram_stop instead of railway=platform?

Because sometimes trams just stop in the road, not at anything that
might be described as a platform. The only thing you can see is a pole
(looking remarkably like a bus stop, in fact). You could call them
railway=platform nodes, but it doesn't sound right. You could call
them bus stops, but then they'd render as bus stops. Calling them
highway=tram_stop allows the nodes to be used by bus relations, while
still using a conventional railway=tram_stop for rendering purposes.

> Why replacing the stop position for trams/trains with the platform/pole in
> routes?

Because the platform/pole is a direct indicator of where the
passengers should go to catch the service. The stop position is an
indirect indicator of where the passengers should go - ok for simple
pairs of tram platforms, but less use for anything else. I struggle to
see the value of knowing the stop position except for rendering (it's
just the point on the path of the service which happens to be closest
to the platform/pole).

> I read implicitly that you agree to use the platform instead of the pole for
> relations, correct?

Yes. The things that might constitute a stop (platform, bus_stop,
tram_stop, halt, station etc) are all quite distinct from the things
that constitute the path of the service. If it stops at a platform,
and you have that object available to put in the list of stops in the
relation, then I'd use it.

> 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 the tags?

Tag what you like, as they say, but the route relation should include
a clear list of stops. If some people want to use on-the-way nodes as
a proxy for the platform (and they do), then having both platforms and
stop_positions in the relation strikes me as likely to cause
confusion. Better to only put one node (or platform way/area) in the
relation per stop.


More information about the Talk-transit mailing list