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

Jarek PiĆ³rkowski jarek at piorkowski.ca
Sun Apr 28 14:27:34 UTC 2019

On Sun, 28 Apr 2019 at 10:04, Markus <selfishseahorse at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

Oh cool - with routing and time estimates and all?

> 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).

In some cases I've seen (https://osm.org/way/395511322 comes to mind),
the duplicate tagging when platforms are present is handled by having
hw=bus_stop tag on one of the nodes of the platform way, and then the
platform way has hw=platform (pt=platform in this case but it would
work with hw=platform as well). That helps to compute "these are part
of one logical stop" without needing a relation.

My other observation is that perhaps the relatively relation-rich PTv2
came around in years when relations were cool and a solution to
everything. I haven't been around OSM much, but reading through some
historical conversations I get the sense that there's been a bit of a
swing back with many people now disliking relations for things that
are geographically close (and thus computable as belonging together).
Does this perhaps explain the stop_area origin and why it currently
seems not as useful?


More information about the Talk-transit mailing list