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

DC Viennablog emergency99 at outlook.com
Mon May 13 15:38:28 UTC 2019


When the platform is a really existing built thing, you would need highway=platform on it, and an additional highway=bus_stop at the stop pole or wherever. That is more clutter and worse state of the database, than if we would finally move to the more versatile public_transport=platform. As it is the only thing that the p_t:v2 scheme actually needs anyway, we could save so much node clutter if we would use only that.

The stop (bus, tram, whatever) is only a pin in a field? Ok, let‘s have a node(p_t=platform;name=*) and put only that in the route relations.

The stop has a piece of sidewalk that is built forward slightly or a true platform: Have a polygon with the same tags.

As usually, any mode of transport is longer and and have multiple doors, you can still have the polygon as saying „anywhere here, the passengers can wait“.

Why is it so bad to adapt to a scheme that got voted in favour of long ago?

Ok, some additional confusing clutter exists in this scheme, but if I understand the explanations here, most, if not all of that is not required.

If the render would finally render public_transport=platform nodes exactly like highway=bus_stop / any tram/train stop equivalent, and public_transport=platform polygons exactly like highway=platform, and we would use only that, the state of the database would be far better than the simply not versatile enough bus stop node.

Maybe we could at some point get to just usefully rewrite the v2 scheme definition to make it easier to understand. Most dislike against it seems to come from not understanding it correctly, as it is described to complex in some cases.

If we were to say, that only p_t=platform is to be used in most cases, on nodes or ways beside the road, and nothing else is actually required, it be more accessible than hw=bus_stop&hw=platform, the relations would be almost the same as now, and the only thing that needs to be slightly corrected be the renders to finally also accept this.

Except for being older, what makes hw=bus_stop better?
You still might have to then use hw=platform and maybe p_t=platform additionally, it needs to be an extra node, it does not necessarily mean what it says (bus stop is conceptually a combination of platform and stop position[s]) and it is a stiff node, that only works for buses then.

What will it take for the haters to accept this (potentially) simpler, newer scheme?

KR
RobinD (emergency99)
________________________________
Von: Dave F via Talk-transit <talk-transit at openstreetmap.org>
Gesendet: Montag, 13. Mai 2019 17:10:21
An: talk-transit at openstreetmap.org
Cc: Dave F
Betreff: Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme

On 13/05/2019 07:36, Tijmen Stam wrote:
> On 13-05-19 00:14, Jo wrote:
>> 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.
>
> I don't agree with you on that point. With that view we can't change
> things in OSM anymore to a more precise mapping.

A bus stop as a node to represent the sign/pole is /far/ more accurate
than an arbitrary invisible mutli-noded polygon.

DaveF

_______________________________________________
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/20190513/1216275c/attachment.html>


More information about the Talk-transit mailing list