[Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme

Dave F davefoxfac63 at btinternet.com
Sun Apr 28 11:46:55 UTC 2019

General points:

Are Stop_Areas required?
What are they for?
Are they in use?/Who uses them?/Will they ever be used?*
If there is a purpose for them, what should they consist of? I've seen 
shops, bike racks, litter bins included. Surely they're irrelevant?

Remove public_transport=station/train=yes & 
public_transport=platform/train=yes from railways.
They are purely duplication of the existing, much used 
railway=station/railway=platform respectively. They provide no 
additional information. Duplication is wasted effort. It leads to 
confusion & errors.

The use of 'platform' seems to have been hi-jacked by PT to represent a 
stopping place instead of it's original true meaning of a physical 
raised area above road level to aid vehicle boarding. Is 
public_transport=platform required at all on bus stops? As with 
railways, use existing tags.

* I think these questions need to be asked of all PT tags. From what I 
can ascertain the various schemas were developed in great detail to look 
good on paper, but appear to have little relevance to real world usage. 
I think this is further borne out by PT tags not being widely implemented.


On 26/04/2019 16:10, Markus wrote:
> Hi all,
> I've added, updated and corrected several dozen public transportation
> routes in the past few years using the PTv2 scheme. As is the case
> with most route relations, they often break (e.g., because the course
> of a road or rails is modified, a new roundabout is built, a stop is
> displaced or simply by accident). However, with all the stop_positions
> and stop_areas, maintaining these routes and stops is very much
> time-consuming.
> There have been several ideas to simplify and improve public
> transportation mapping (e.g. [1] or [2]), however they either faced
> too much opposition or are inactive. Therefore I've worked out three
> different drafts for an improved public transportation scheme and
> would like your opinion. After that, i plan to write a full proposal
> for the option that got the most support.
> In order to better understand how I came up with the ideas below, I
> have first listed the deficiencies of the current public transport
> schemes:
> Deficiencies of PTv1:
>    * No separate route relation per direction and route variant.
>    * Platforms at stations cannot be added to route relations, which
> prevents a better routing.
>    * Stops (highway=bus_stop/railway=tram_stop) are often placed on the
> road or rail, which is not optimal for routing.
> Deficiencies of PTv2:
>    * public_transport=stop_position and public_transport=stop_area make
> mapping and maintaining complicated and time-consuming. Besides,
> public_transport=stop_position is unnecessary, as it can be calculated
> from public_transport=platform (which provide a more exact routing).
>    * Counter-intuitive public_transport=platform: its meaning depends
> on whether used on way/area (where it means a platform) or on node
> (where it means a waiting area w/o platform).
>    * Not possible to add transport mode tags (e.g. bus=yes) on
> public_transport=platform because they are also used to set access.
> Now for the possible solutions:
>    1. Sticking to PTv1 tags, but with separate route relations per
> direction/variant and by placing stops at the point where passengers
> wait. A stop with a platform get a railway/highway=platform way/area
> and a railway=tram_stop/highway=bus_stop node. (Except at stations, a
> stop_area relation is not required because the stop node is placed on
> the platform.) -- Advantage: Widely used tags, least retagging
> required. Disadvantage: A stop with a platform needs two elements (as
> railway/highway=platform + railway=tram_stop/highway=bus_stop can't be
> combined).
>    2. Sticking to PTv2 tags, but abandoning
> public_transport=stop_position and introducing a new transport_mode=*
> tag. -- Advantage: Only one element per stop. Disadvantage: The rather
> counter-intuitive public_transport=platform remains.
>    3. Abolishing public_transport=stop_position and
> public_transport=platform and introducing a new public_transport=stop
> tag (node/way/area) for the waiting area at stops, which can be
> combined with railway/highway=platform if the stop consists of a
> platform. Besides, introducing a new transport_mode=* tag. --
> Advantage: Only one element per stop, very flexible and clear.
> Disadvantage: Much retagging required.
> [1]: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Transport_modes_on_platforms_and_stations
> [2]: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Refined_Public_Transport
> Thanks in advance for your replies.
> Best regards
> Markus
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-transit mailing list
> Talk-transit at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

More information about the Talk-transit mailing list