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

John Whelan jwhelan0112 at gmail.com
Sat May 4 15:01:35 UTC 2019


So can the proposal build on existing highway=bus_stop?  On reason for 
this is a number of cites have imported their bus stops from Open Data 
which ensures completeness.  ie all the bus stops in the city are 
present and occasionally they are reimported to catch any new bus stops 
or removal of others.  Changing from bus stops means everyone who does 
this sort of import has to reconfigure their import system and doing 
that will be awkward and may lead to a bus stop being mapped twice.

Also there are existing tutorials on how to map a bus stop.  Many will 
be local so finding them to correct them will be a major problem.

Thoughts?

Thanks

Cheerio John

Dave F via Talk-transit wrote on 2019-05-04 10:53 AM:
> Hi
>
> On 04/05/2019 11:12, Wiklund Johan wrote:
>> At least in Norway, highway=bus_stop is a free floating node 
>> representing the location of a stop,
>
> public_transport=platform is also 'free floating'.
>
>> not the geometry of a stop.
>
> 147 platforms are nodes.
>
> In the examples of your overpass public_transport=platform doesn't 
> represent the geometry of a stop, just arbitrary areas of pavement 
> adjacent to bus stop poles. Other furniture maybe present (shelter, 
> bench etc) but they can either be added as extra tags to the more 
> abundant highway=bus_stop or, preferably, as separate items.
>
>> I should also say that platforms are abundant in Norway, especially 
>> in the Oslo region where consistent mapping is in place. 
>> http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/IGK
>
> There are 300 more bus stops than platforms 
> http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/IHi
>
> Bus stops can be tagged to provide the same data. Think of the time & 
> effort saved if they'd been utilised.
>
> Just because something was mapped incorrectly in the past it doesn't 
> mean it should continue. It should be corrected to improve the 
> database Please remember this thread (& others) were started in an 
> attempt to "simplified public transportation scheme". To achieve that, 
> remapping & code rewriting will have to occur.
>
> PS This one doesn't look right: 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/361309229
>
> Cheers
> DaveF
>
>>
>> /Johan
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Dave F via Talk-transit <talk-transit at openstreetmap.org>
>> Sent: fredag 3. mai 2019 23.56
>> To: talk-transit at openstreetmap.org
>> Cc: Dave F <davefoxfac63 at btinternet.com>
>> Subject: Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public 
>> transportation scheme
>>
>> Hi Johan
>>
>> Is there reason it can't use highway=bus_stop,& equivalents for trams 
>> etc, which were already in the database & more abundant than 'platform'?
>>
>> DaveF
>>
>> On 03/05/2019 21:48, Wiklund Johan wrote:
>>> In response to:
>>>> Please show me a router which uses platforms as I'm struggling to 
>>>> see the benefits atm.
>>> And:
>>>
>>>> This reinforces my point about misappropriation of tags. A platform 
>>>> is a physical construction higher than the surrounding ground to 
>>>> allow easier boarding.
>>>>
>>>> A platform:
>>>> https://s0.geograph.org.uk/geophotos/04/76/30/4763016_2416f5ee.jpg
>>>>
>>>> Not a platform:
>>>> https://i.pinimg.com/originals/38/90/a0/3890a0f451e1a6900d174b29125b3
>>>> c80.jpg
>>> We use public_transport=platform abundantly in routing with OTP, and 
>>> it is a key component in specifying the origin of walk links. We use 
>>> it as an area, or a way. We need these to make direct contact 
>>> between our stops (separate database) and the foot-routing network 
>>> of OSM.
>>>
>>> I further see no problem in extending the usage of the platform 
>>> (public_transport=platform) to any waiting area for public 
>>> transport. To force correct word description would force one to use 
>>> terms like "street_waiting_area" "dirt_pit", "ditch" or "sidewalk" 
>>> which would only be hairsplitting. If the usage of the word platform 
>>> is misappropriation, I think it is the wording in the scheme that is 
>>> too narrowly defined, rather than the widespread usage being wrong.
>>>
>>> However, don’t get me wrong. I don’t really care what it's called as 
>>> long as there is an area which can represent where passengers wait, 
>>> and to which public transport vehicles arrive. This is of course the 
>>> needs of our own journey planner, and we have no stake in the wider 
>>> public transport scheme of OSM. I just wanted to show that there are 
>>> indeed routers which use the platforms, and have great emphasis on 
>>> their usage.
>>>
>>> In case you were wondering which router I'm talking about:
>>> https://en-tur.no/ (https://github.com/entur/opentripplanner)
>>>
>>> Sincerely (and possibly missing a few points because I haven't been
>>> reading the whole discussion),
>>>
>>> Johan Wiklund
>>> Entur
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Dave F via Talk-transit <talk-transit at openstreetmap.org>
>>> Sent: fredag 3. mai 2019 19.09
>>> To: Public transport/transit/shared taxi related topics
>>> <talk-transit at openstreetmap.org>; selfishseahorse at gmail.com
>>> Cc: Dave F <davefoxfac63 at btinternet.com>
>>> Subject: Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public
>>> transportation scheme
>>>
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> (This amalgamates replies to Markus's points in his last post.)
>>>
>>> On 30/04/2019 18:34, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>>> A platform is where people wait to board; if they stand at a pole
>>>> (typical for buses), then the pole is logically the platform.
>>> This reinforces my point about misappropriation of tags. A platform 
>>> is a physical construction higher than the surrounding ground to 
>>> allow easier boarding.
>>>
>>> A platform:
>>> https://s0.geograph.org.uk/geophotos/04/76/30/4763016_2416f5ee.jpg
>>>
>>> Not a platform:
>>> https://i.pinimg.com/originals/38/90/a0/3890a0f451e1a6900d174b29125b3c
>>> 80.jpg
>>>
>>> If (& I believe it's a big if), a separate tag is required to as you 
>>> & Markus suggest, one with a unique, non-confusing value should be 
>>> used.
>>>
>>> Many public_transport=platform are tagged on the same node as 
>>> highway=bus_stop. They have no raised construction Therefore they're 
>>> redundant - routing can use the bus stop tag for the "stop node 
>>> beside the road" as Markus described it.:
>>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/469760546#map=19/51.51026/-0.18630
>>>
>>>
>>>> That's easily distinguished from large platforms because it's a node
>>>> rather than a way/area.
>>> Not really. To save time, contributors occasionally combine tags 
>>> onto a single object: litter_bins, shelters, benches *&* raised 
>>> platforms in the case of bus stops. I'm not saying it's the 
>>> correct/best way to map, but it happens.
>>>
>>>> I think the idea was that nobody _could_ build routers with the data
>>>> we had, which was inconsistently tagged between areas and sometimes
>>>> even between mappers in the same area.
>>> This maybe true, but as I point out in my previous post, adding 
>>> extra tags only masks the problems. The "inconsistencies" should be 
>>> corrected.
>>>
>>>> If you're trying to construct a route that involves walking to a bus
>>>> stop, riding the bus to another stop, and then walking some more,
>>>> then you need a linkage connecting the bus route (using stop
>>>> positions) with the walkways (using platforms).  I'm not saying
>>>> that's the only way to do it, but it's the only way that was proposed.
>>> Do you have an example as I'm unsure what you mean by 'walkways' and 
>>> platforms are disconnected from the bus routes, as are bus stops, 
>>> so, as I said above, PT can use bus stops.
>>>
>>> Markus previously said "OsmAnd Is able to navigate with routes 
>>> consisting only of highway=bus_stop beside the road."
>>>
>>> So, to be absolutely sure we're singing from the same hymn sheet, 
>>> are we agreed that 'public_transport=platform' tag to represent a 
>>> place where vehicles stop to allow passengers to alight, is 
>>> redundant in PT as another, existing, more prevalent tag - 
>>> 'highway=bus_stop' can be used instead?
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> DaveF
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

-- 
Sent from Postbox <https://www.postbox-inc.com>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-transit/attachments/20190504/377ad3cc/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Talk-transit mailing list