[Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme
mailinglists at iivq.net
Wed May 8 20:14:45 UTC 2019
On 06-05-19 19:29, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> On 2019-04-30 06:06, Dave F via Talk-transit wrote:
>> On 29/04/2019 16:22, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>> Stop areas are supposed to link stop positions to platforms, so a
>>> router knows which platform you need to take a route that only stops
>>> on a particular track. In most cases, this can be inferred by
>>> proximity, but in some it can't, particularly at very complex stations.
>> If there needs to be a 'link' (& I'm still not convinced it does), can
>> it not be achieved with unifying tags on nodes/ways? Why does it
>> require a relation?
>> Relations were devised to allow items which couldn't be achieved on
>> nodes/ways alone (ie routes) not to collect things together. If it can
>> be done without relations it makes tagging so much simpler & less
>> prone to errors.
> What is the "unifying tag" you propose, and how would it work?
> I'd love to see stop areas go away, or at least limited to instances
> where the link between stop position and platform can't be deduced from
> geometry. Heck, in most cases, the stop position itself can be deduced
> from the platform and route geometry--assuming the platform is in the
> route relation, which isn't always the case.
But in some it can't.
Also, the stop_area is, in the Netherlands, a concept used to map all
stops "belonging" to each other together, for trhansit open data/transit
planners. e.g. all four stops around a junction will be one "stop_area"
(having one ref:IFOPT:NL:S:<number> reference), even when those four
stops will have different names (e.g. named in pairs after the side street).
Example of a stop_area with stops:
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8426674> (unfortunately, this is
not the best example as the whole station complex is divided into three
stop_areas, one for the subway, and two for the east and west bus station)
More information about the Talk-transit