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

Dominik Mahrer (Teddy) teddy at teddy.ch
Fri Dec 17 08:32:56 GMT 2010


On 12/13/2010 11:35 PM, Richard Mann wrote:
> 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.

So I think there is the consensus that there exist tree things that can 
be mapped: stop position (railway=tram_stop), platform 
(railway=platform) and the pole (new tag highway=tram_stop).

You suggest to only add the platform (or if not existing the pole) to 
the route. If there is only the platform mapped this is obvious. How 
would you handle existing routes, only containing the stop_positions 
(railway=tram_stop)? Removing stop positions and adding the platform/pole?

> 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).

So you would deprecate railway=tram_stop as the stop position?

>> 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.

We are in consensus.

>> 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.

Only adding on-the-way nodes into the relation is often used, correct. 
But I agree that this is incomplete. My proposal therefore would add 
both (stop position and platform).

I think I will have to extend my proposal that it is not mandatory to 
map all the proposed points.

But what would you suggest to use as the stop_position for bus stops, if 
you would have to decide?

Regards
Teddych



More information about the Talk-transit mailing list