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

Markus selfishseahorse at gmail.com
Sun Apr 28 14:03:28 UTC 2019

On Sat, 27 Apr 2019 at 16:37, Jarek PiĆ³rkowski <jarek at piorkowski.ca> wrote:
> Hi all,
> I noticed that OsmAnd has recently introduced support for some public
> transit routing: https://osmand.net/blog/guideline-pt . Has anyone
> used it or is familiar with the implementation? I would guess it would
> make them one of the bigger consumers of public transit relations in
> OSM and it might make sense to check what they absolutely need and
> what is a nice to have. Do we know of any other major consumers of
> public transit relations?

I've tested the bus routes from Stockholm in OsmAnd. They seem to work
perfectly despite not having any public_transport=platform tags and
public_transport=stop_position nodes.

> - Regarding Markus's suggestion #3 for introducing
> public_transport=stop, wouldn't it be simpler to redefine
> highway=bus_stop / railway=tram_stop to mean the same thing? It might
> be simpler to redefine public transport relations to allow use of
> hw=bus_stop / rw=tram_stop for waiting area at stops that don't have a
> defined platform - and that many data consumers already use them is a
> plus. As far as I can tell this is basically what the Stockholm
> example linked does, isn't it? I don't know the history of
> introduction of PTv2 so perhaps I'm missing some disadvantages of
> hw=bus_stop tagging.

Tram stops often have platforms (and bus stops sometimes too). For
such stops, two PTv1 elements are necessary because railway=tram_stop
can't be used on the same area (or way) as railway=platform (they use
the same key). With a new tag for stops (such as the suggested
public_transport=stop tag) or a new tag for platforms, this were
possible. However, much retagging were needed. Alternatively,
railway=tram_stop (or highway=bus_stop) could be placed on the
platform area (first suggested solution).



More information about the Talk-transit mailing list