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

Jo winfixit at gmail.com
Sun May 12 22:14:26 UTC 2019


I like to keep things simple, the best way to accomplish that, is by having
a single object for each stop that holds all the details for its
"lifetime". That's why I don't like the idea of 'upgrading from a node to a
way/area or a relation.

So a node next to the highway per stop.

I started adding public_transport=platform/bus=yes to these nodes, but to
be honest, I am not sure why. anymore What matters to get them rendered is
to add highway=bus_stop to them. And that's not going to change anytime
soon.

Think of these nodes as logical objects that represent the stops. The nice
thing about them is that they have coordinates directly, no need to
recalculate center points over and over and over and over again.

Of course, if there are physical platforms, it's easy to map them as
separate objects, tagged with highway=platform or railway=platform on a way
or an area. No need to repeat all the details on them though.

About the stop_area relations, they're not needed everywhere, but they
could be used to show what belongs together. Of course, that would mean all
the objects related to the stop at one side of the street, not both sides.

public_transport=stop_position, I only use them at the beginning and the
end of the itineraries. We could also simply split the way on a node that
doesn't have tags.

Polyglot





On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 8:55 PM Tijmen Stam <mailinglists at iivq.net> wrote:

> On 07-05-19 15:29, Dave F via Talk-transit wrote:
> > On 06/05/2019 19:53, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> >> On 2019-05-03 12:09, Dave F via Talk-transit wrote:
> >>>
> >>> This reinforces my point about misappropriation of tags. A platform is
> >>> a physical construction higher than the surrounding ground to allow
> >>> easier boarding.
> >>
> >> It's a logical platform whether it physically exists or not.
> >
> > <smiles> A 'logical platform'?
> >
> >  From OSM's main welcome page:
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/welcome
> > "OpenStreetMap is a place for mapping things that are both /real and
> > current/"
> >
> > "What it /doesn't/ include is... hypothetical features,"
>
> a "public_transport=platform" is not defined as being "platform" (raised
> good concrete flooring) but as "the place where people wait to board a
> bus/tram/train". Whatever form that is.
>
> It is not uncommon for key/values to be misnomers in OSM. Clearest
> example is private-access ways being tagged as highway=* (plus
> access=no) which is a misnomer in British English (which we use), as
> highways are public-access roads by legal definition. (see
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway#Terminology)
>
> >>   It's pretty well established that using a platform node for a mere
> >> pole is valid.
> >
> > But you're mapping them as areas.
> > As bus stop tags are by far the more established, why not use that to
> > map a."mere pole".
>
> This is circular reasoning. We can't use the new thing because the old
> thing is much more usual.
> Besides, the new thing (public_transport=platform in PTv2) has been
> voted on in 2011, with overwhelming majority (83 to 6)
>
> >  From the bus stop wiki page:
> > "A bus stop is a place where passengers can board or alight from a bus."
> > Which is what you're claiming platform areas are. As I said it's pure
> > duplication.
>
> No, changing of tagging, not replication.
> There is no need to map with highway=bus_stop anymore (save for
> rendering on osm_carto)
>
> >>   People wait there to be picked up, regardless of the actual surface
> >> type (which can change over time anyway).
> >
> > Unsure why you believe surface is relevant, but as I said, your examples
> > of platforms are imaginary, inaccurate & arbitrary.
>
> He says the surface is irrelevant (regardless).
> I find it a losing argument by saying Stephen's examples are "imaginary,
> inaccurate and arbritary"?, even when he hardly gives an example in the
> post you quote.
>
> >>> A platform:
> >>> https://s0.geograph.org.uk/geophotos/04/76/30/4763016_2416f5ee.jpg
> >>>
> >>> Not a platform:
> >>>
> https://i.pinimg.com/originals/38/90/a0/3890a0f451e1a6900d174b29125b3c80.jpg
>
> That is a "place where people wait to board" (or in this instance, where
> people just alighted)
>
> >>> 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
>
> The reason double tagging exists, is that public_transport=platform
> isn't rendered yet.
>
> >> I'd be fine with saying that highway=bus_stop implies
> >> public_transport=platform, except that some mappers put bus stops on
> >> the way instead of beside the way and argue with anyone who tries to
> >> fix them, so in those areas, separate nodes for the platform had to be
> >> added.
>
> >  From the bus stop wiki page:
> > "The highway=bus_stop tag is widely used on a node off *to one side of
> > the highway way* to identify the position where passengers wait for a
> > bus beside the carriageway."
>
> > However, is it essential that highway=bus_stop is/isn't on a way?
> > Routers should be able to adapt to both scenarios.
>
> We can put everything in the hands of routers. Maybe we should expect
> routers to take account for misspellings as well?
> It would be easier for the mapping community AND the routers if we could
> decide on one uniform scheme.
>
> >> Ditto for railway=platform implying public_transport=platform
> > railway=platform implies no such thing. It represents a physical object,
> > nothing more, nothing less.
>
> What physical object?
> What if there is a railway station that has no raised platform but where
> one just alights into the trackbed? What physical object is there?
> e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Padag_Road_railway_station
> The sand there is the "place where people wait to board", which could be
> mapped as railway=platform or public_transport is platform, but not in
> YOUR view, as there is no physical "platform", no raised object.
>
> >  From what I've seen public_transport=platform was conceived as purely a
> > duplicating tag to 'collect things together'.
>
> To unify. Not to duplicate. It would replace the railway=platform or the
> highway=bus_stop.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190513/50a34624/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Talk-transit mailing list