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

Jo winfixit at gmail.com
Thu May 9 20:02:56 UTC 2019


The thing is, as the area around Stockholm clearly shows, highway=bus_stop
is indeed sufficient. If I were to remove all the
public_transport=platform/bus=yes tags from the stops in Belgium, it's very
likely that nobody would notice. If I were to remove highway=bus_stop, all
of  sudden it would seem that Belgium doesn't have bus stops anymore.

"Killing off" highway=bus_stop is what I have been trying to do (somewhat
passively, or at least not very actively) for the past few years. Since
about a year I came to the conclusion that forsaking public_transport tags
would be more straightforward if we really want a simplification.

And double tagging everyting to please everyone is quite likely the easiest
thing to keep doing, even though it's awkward every time when you have to
explain a highway=bus_stop isn't actually a highway and a
public_transport=platform isn't actually a platform in 90% of the bus stops
involved.

This is probably what is going to happen, because the people who would like
to abolish the public_transport tags will never agree with the people who
want to abolish the highway=bus_stop tags.

Polyglot, le défaitiste

On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 9:46 PM DC Viennablog <emergency99 at outlook.com>
wrote:

> Yes, one object would be nice, however, I think it should be versatile
> enough to be able to be a node, line or polygon.
> So basically what public_transport=platform is.
> I also don't mind it being called "platform", even if there is only a pole
> stuck in a field.
> That would not make p_t:v2 mapping futile, but enable a simpler scheme.
> Also, we would not have the problem of having "bus_stop", "tram_stop",
> "train_stop" being different things.
>
> The highway=bus_stop tag is a thing that locks the mode of transport in to
> much. That should be killed of, especially because a bus waiting area is
> pushing the "highway" tag a little bit (as are things like
> "highway=footway", but I don't want to fully open that box here now!).
>
> Those tags like hw=bus_stop or railway=station were thought up at a time,
> when those things (in OSM) were not seen as a group (public_transport) but
> as they are in reality pretty similar in use and form of amenity, I think
> it is suitable to go the way of unifying it as much as possible under the
> p_t-umbrella.
>
> Also, any tag that is duplicating p_t tags in the "railway"-key-area
> should possibly be looked at, but I think we would first need to simplify
> the p_t in order for any other keys to be fitted to that.
>
> So how would people like the suggestion:
>
>
>    - Keeping only public_transport=platform as a needed object, without
>    hw=bus_stop
>       - (as it should also be used for trams, trains and any other mean
>       of public_transport – thinking things like the "Emirates Air Line" in
>       London).
>    - In a route relation, also only have that platform (with role "stop")
>    and the streets/rails.
>       - You would still need to make sure the first/last street of the
>       relation ends on a node near the platform point/area!
>    - Additional, purely convenient tags to say which mode of transport
>    stops there (bus=yes, tram=yes...)
>
> That would only be a slight tweak, that would still make the mapping more
> straight forward, but also make it more dynamic in the usage-possibilities.
>
> Also, I think stop_area-relations should be rethought as grouping many
> stations that could be interchanged between together. Take the Hauptbahnhof
> in Vienna for example. The "Fernbusbahnhof", the regional bus terminal, the
> station "Hauptbahnhof" of 13A/69A, the station "Hauptbahnhof Süd" of the
> 69A and possibly even "Gertrude-Fröhlich-Sandner-Straße" are all just
> situated at or near exits of the train station. So they are all part of
> that "station-area". So I think, the stop-area should be kept, but as a
> more useful relation to sum up stop/station complexes. That is a much
> greater use for a relation than just telling within the database that one
> thing belongs to another that is right next to it...
>
> And if required, the deletion/retagging of
> stop_position/bus_stop/(tram_stop) nodes in areas where
> "platform"-nodes/ways exist could be done in a semi-mechanical edit.
>
> Then, maybe the renders would also hail this only available tag as
> something worth showing...
>
> KR
> RobinD. (emergency99)
> ------------------------------
> *Von:* Jo <winfixit at gmail.com>
> *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 9. Mai 2019 20:22
> *An:* Public transport/transit/shared taxi related topics
> *Betreff:* Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public
> transportation scheme
>
> I have been holding off to respond to this. Almost a decade ago I started
> asking for public_transport=platform combined with bus=yes to be rendered,
> so it would become possible to drop highway=bus_stop.
>
> After all those years it has become obvious that there is no willingness
> to do so. So it makes sense to drop the public_transport tagging scheme
> instead as it clearly failed to deliver on its promise to streamline
> mapping of public transport.
>
> As far as I am concerned a few things are important:
>
> * 1 single object to represent a bus stop.
> * This object should clearly show on which side of the way the stop is
> located.
> * My preference is to have this mapped on a single node, which keeps
> representing the stop for its 'lifetime'.
> * There is no problem to use highway=bus_stop for such a node.
>
> So far, so good.
>
> In Belgium, the cities of Antwerp and Ghent and all the villages along the
> coast have trams which are operated by the same operator as the buses. This
> means that it can happen that the pole next to where the passengers wait
> serves for both buses and trams. The operator assigned a single reference
> number to these, so for me it's obvious that such tram stops go on those
> same nodes and by extension so do all the other tram stops.
> Apparently though tram and other rail infrastructure does have nodes, but
> those nodes seem to be mapped as nodes on the railway itself and that's
> where things start to clash. Not really a big deal, unless you meet a
> mapper who insists those nodes should be on the railway ways...
>
> By analogy I would also have nodes next to the railway for subway and
> maybe even for train, but I never actually got around to mapping train
> infrastructure, the 70000 bus and tram stops were enough to keep me busy.
>
> Polyglot
>
> On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 1:19 PM Dave F via Talk-transit <
> talk-transit at openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 08/05/2019 20:56, Tijmen Stam wrote:
> >
> > I never understood the whole railway=platform discussion.
> > IHMO hw=bus_stop, hw=platform and rw=platform should die, and all be
> > replaced by public_transport=platform
>
> You fail to say why.
>
> > I have updated entire public transport concessions with almost all
> > stops having a platform way or area. In places where I did make
> > something _new_, I didn't include highway=bus_stop and deleted the old
> > one,
>
> Please clarify what you mean by the "old one"
>
> > under the "don't tag for the renderer" idea, and everything works fine
> > on my preferred renderer (osmand)
>
> That isn't the only rendering
>
>
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-transit/attachments/20190509/57f385f4/attachment.html>


More information about the Talk-transit mailing list