[Talk-transit] Stop according to new PT scheme not rendered?

[Jo]

You see Gilles? It's not about to happen anytime soon. (It's not the first
time I receive this answer). It would also help if somebody updated the
wiki page where the 'new' scheme is explained, to reflect this opinion.

Could somebody fix the validator in JOSM? A node with highway=bus_stop
should not cause a warning when assigned a platform role in a route
relation. I also fail to see why stop and platform roles are needed in
stop_area relations. It's obvious which is which.


Jo


2013/12/9 Richard Mann <richard.mann.westoxford at gmail.com>

> highway=bus_stop & railway=tram_stop are well-established and do the basic
> job perfectly well
>
> some people decided they wanted a different system
>
> the value to the renderers of processing the new system is unclear at
> best; so they aren't likely to
>
> just add the established tags and be done with it
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 1:20 PM, Jo <winfixit at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Eventually has already taken 2 years and might take another 5. I tag all
>> my bus stops with highway=bus_stop, I'll replace it on all 40000 of them
>> with public_transport=platform/bus=yes at some point in the distant future.
>> I've been asking to render it for ages now and I gave up hope.
>> I also don't see why I would be double tagging though.
>>
>> The problem is, of course, that in my route relations I do use the role
>> platform, and JOSM's validator doesn't like that. So be it. It's annoying
>> when this pops up in other people's sessions though and they start asking
>> questions about it.
>>
>> The icon you see in JOSM, is just an icon. The internal rendering rules
>> give precedence to railway=tram_stop or public_transport=platform/tram=yes.
>> That's not a problem.
>>
>> No reason for separating them.
>>
>> I do separate stops over different nodes when they belong to different
>> operators though, because sometimes the zones differ, or the refs, or the
>> names. I then combine them into a stop_area relation, together with a node
>> public_transport=stop_position/bus=yes (as a node of the highway). I don't
>> always create these and I never add them to the route relations.
>>
>> The route relations are a pain to maintain, no need to make it even more
>> complicated.
>>
>> Polyglot
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2013/12/9 Mike N <niceman at att.net>
>>
>>> On 12/9/2013 6:52 AM, Gilles Baumgartner wrote:
>>>
>>>  Is it ok to *add* the legacy tag
>>>> highway <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway>=bus_stop
>>>> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dbus_stop>
>>>>
>>>> to be at the same time compliant with the new tags but still make the
>>>> renderer show the bus stop?
>>>>
>>>
>>>   I would recommend adding the legacy tag.   This is because the public
>>> transport tagging scheme is in a long transition period.  Eventually the
>>> map rendering rules will be modified to include the new scheme.
>>>
>>>  *2. Combined stops, e.g. tram and bus*
>>>>
>>>
>>>  I'm not familiar with this problem; hopefully someone else will have a
>>> recommendation.
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Talk-transit mailing list
>>> Talk-transit at openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-transit mailing list
>> Talk-transit at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-transit mailing list
> Talk-transit at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-transit/attachments/20131209/723cdc9f/attachment-0001.html>