[Talk-transit] Making bus lines more specific

[Robin Däneke]

Because the discussion of this thread already ran into the direction of changing different aspects about the tagging, I used it for the general discussion. If we refine the buses, it could go hand in hand with everything else. I’d be interested in which refinements would be needed there as part of my general suggestion. But in my current WIP-suggestion the „bus=yes,tram=yes“ should not be necesarry, only a route relation type for each mean of transport. 

If I could get a list of types of buses, I could think about how to do this.
Idealy, we leave the „route=bus“ and then add another sub_tag group bus=* or bus_type=*. Then the generalized „bus" would still be valid but the specification would be available if needed...

Should I open a new thread for the general discussion?

KR
RobinD

> Am 28.04.2020 um 14:34 schrieb Phake Nick <c933103 at gmail.com>:
> 
> Excuse me, I am a bit lost on how refining bus stop/station/platform tags will help resolving the issue of making bus route tagging more specific, and differentiate between different rype of bus services, which is the topic of this email thread?
> 
> 在 2020年4月28日週二 15:45，Robin Däneke <robin at daeneke.at <mailto:robin at daeneke.at>> 寫道：
> Hello everybody,
> 
> I have lately been thinking about somehow reworking (or giving a new push to) the current p_t:v2 scheme.
> Especially for the fact, that, since it was first proposed and accepted, not a lot has changed in which tags are rendered, how certain things are hence mapped and the Wiki-Pages on the topic have also changed in the last years without any visible going through another proposal process.
> 
> When I started mapping in 2011, and first read the german and then the english p:t:v2 wiki pages, it was:
> - highway=bus_stop is a legacy tag that should eventually be completely phased out
> - stop positions and platforms are to be both mapped
> and some other things I already forgot…
> Now, iD has a rule in its verifyer, that requires highway=bus_stop on platform nodes. The point of the public_transport tags is, among other points, to replace less dedicated highway tags.
> I think it would be time for a p_t:v2.5 proposal, where we take the innicial ideas of the v2, maybe refine a few small details (like is stop_position required, or just platforms, can relations of route-parts be used in route relations to save on redundancy…) and then put it forward for voting. If accepted, we would possibly now have more leverage to get the editor and render-programers to actually properly implement it this time around.
> 
> Maybe I could find some time to write my suggestions into a document, and we could collect the ideas for those extra tags in there too. I think it would make more sense that way, than just the addition of a few tags to the current scheme, to then be ignored by the rest of OSM once again. 
> 
> Kind Regards
> Robin D. (emergency99)
> 
> 
> PS: The problem with bus_stop on platform: platforms can be nodes, lines, ways, even relations, highway=bus_stop can only be a node. This old tag should go the same way as the farm tag, which was (forcefully) abandoned a couple of years back. There it worked, why not for the „new“ p_t scheme?
> 
> > Am 28.04.2020 um 00:12 schrieb Guilherme Braga Alves <gbragaalves at gmail.com <mailto:gbragaalves at gmail.com>>:
> > 
> > I read your responses and I tend to agree that the opening_hours tag is enough to characterize services that are only operated during peak hours.
> > 
> > On the other hand, it seems to me that there is also agreement on the relevance of having tags to differentiate bus services.
> > 
> > How can we expand this debate and expand this discussion? It may be interesting for other members of the list to speak out, and then we can create or redeem a proposal for implementing new tags.
> > 
> > P.S .: I don't know if this message will enter the reply queue correctly; I hope I'm not opening a new topic. I apologize for my inexperience with maillists.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Talk-transit mailing list
> > Talk-transit at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-transit at openstreetmap.org>
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-transit mailing list
> Talk-transit at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-transit at openstreetmap.org>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit <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/20200428/7f3de860/attachment.htm>