[Talk-transit] Proposed Feature - 2nd RFC - Public Transport

[ant]

On 12.01.2011 17:27, Richard Mann wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 4:07 PM, ant<antofosm at gmail.com>  wrote:
>> So the point of stop area relations is to prepare the data to be interpreted as
>> a network and thus to make routing... easy.
>
> Stop areas are about linking the stop (notionally on the footway) to
> the road. Or they are about linking platforms with the same name. You
> can do that as you go along. The stopping_position and stop_area
> relation are just clutter.
>
> If you know the latlons of two stop areas, you can work out how to get
> between them by running your pedestrian routing algorithm. Marking
> footways between stops (other than the ones you can assume are
> adjacent to any roads not marked with footway=no) is more useful than
> linking the stop areas into a group and implying there is free access
> between any stop area within it.
>
> Basically you use relations to link objects which have a geographical
> relationship - not just a geographical proximity.

I think there is some misunderstanding. I'm talking about the use of 
relations to group stop positions and platforms together that are 
considered a stop or station where one can change vehicles. These could, 
for example, consist of two separate tram stops and four different bus 
stops and could serve several bus and tram lines (or even metro). Maybe 
this should be tagged "stop_area_group" rather than "stop_area". In any 
case these objects certainly have a relationship - they serve as 
interchange nodes in a public transport network.

I'm not defending the use of stop area relations on singular stops that 
have only one platform on each side of the road... that would be clutter 
indeed.

>
> There's sense in adding "group" objects if data relates to the group
> (eg to a station and not to it's individual platforms), but I'd find a
> convenient node or area to hold the info, not put it on an unnecessary
> relation. And if the information is relatively simple (eg a name), I'd
> settle for putting it on all the nodes, rather than create an
> artificial single object to hold it.

As I said, it depends on the scale of the stop (area (group)).

cheers
ant