One should keep in mind some mappers don't care mapping public_transport in all
its subtleties, however they can simply want to map a
__
| |
platform by the side of a road when they spot one, and
|
|
bus_stop also.
Yves
Le 9 avril 2018 23:59:21 GMT+02:00, Michael Reichert a
écrit :
>Hi,
>
>
Hi,
Am 31.03.2018 um 17:00 schrieb Johnparis:
> This implies the following changes to v2:
>
> 1) every platform node should have mandatory {mode}=yes tag(s)
I also think that public_transport=platform without *=yes tags is some
kind of incomplete.
> 2) stop_positions should be optional on the m
On Sun, Apr 8, 2018 at 7:24 AM, ael wrote:
> No. Railway platform for the raised area to match the floor level of
> trains is entirely standard. Platform normally means a raised structure
> so it applies to the entry floor of a bus, but not to the ground level
> waiting area which is seldom, if ev
On Sun, 2018-04-08 at 18:17 +0100, Steve Doerr wrote:
> On 08/04/2018 13:45, Paul Allen wrote:
> > A bus stop is a bus stop. Unless
> > it's at a bus station, in which case it's a stance.
>
> I've never heard it called a stance, and the Oxford English
> Dictionary
> shows that this use of the wo
On Sun, 2018-04-08 at 19:01 +0200, Jo wrote:
>
>
> 2018-04-08 17:37 GMT+02:00 Philip Barnes :
> >
> >
> > That is referring to the stops (or stands) within the bus station.
> > The
> > overall area is Gorsaf Bws, same as as Railway Station (Gorsaf
> > Reilffordd) and Police Station (Gorsaf Hedd
On 08/04/2018 13:45, Paul Allen wrote:
A bus stop is a bus stop. Unless
it's at a bus station, in which case it's a stance.
I've never heard it called a stance, and the Oxford English Dictionary
shows that this use of the word is Scottish.
--
Steve
---
This email has been checked for virus
2018-04-08 17:37 GMT+02:00 Philip Barnes :
> On Sun, 2018-04-08 at 15:52 +0100, Paul Allen wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 8, 2018 at 2:57 PM, Philip Barnes
> > wrote:
> > > Almost, Safle Bws is a bus stop. A bus station is Gorsaf Bws :)
> > >
> > > Phil (trigpoint)
> >
> > Let me look at my local bus sta
On Sun, 2018-04-08 at 15:52 +0100, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 8, 2018 at 2:57 PM, Philip Barnes
> wrote:
> > Almost, Safle Bws is a bus stop. A bus station is Gorsaf Bws :)
> >
> > Phil (trigpoint)
>
> Let me look at my local bus station (well, what passes for one).
>
> Stands A, B, C, D a
On Sun, Apr 8, 2018 at 2:57 PM, Philip Barnes wrote:
>
> Almost, Safle Bws is a bus stop. A bus station is Gorsaf Bws :)
>
> Phil (trigpoint)
>
Let me look at my local bus station (well, what passes for one).
Stands A, B, C, D and E. Stand A consists of 4 bus shelters with at least
3 different
On Sun, Apr 08, 2018 at 01:45:31PM +0100, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 8, 2018 at 12:49 PM, ael wrote:
>
> >
> > In the context of buses, it tends to refer to the part of the vehicle
> > where people may stand to alight or board.
> >
> > In my part of the UK, we never referred to that part of
On Sun, 2018-04-08 at 13:45 +0100, Paul Allen wrote:
>
> On Sun, Apr 8, 2018 at 12:49 PM, ael
> wrote:
> > In the context of buses, it tends to refer to the part of the
> > vehicle
> > where people may stand to alight or board.
> >
>
> In my part of the UK, we never referred to that part of a b
Same in Ireland, I don't think I ever hear any part of a bus referred to as
a platform, possibly because we didn't have those Routemaster buses with
open boarding areas.
And yes, a bus stop is a bus stop, plain and simple. It is not a platform
because there is normally no raised structure. Rail an
On Sun, Apr 8, 2018 at 12:49 PM, ael wrote:
>
> In the context of buses, it tends to refer to the part of the vehicle
> where people may stand to alight or board.
>
> In my part of the UK, we never referred to that part of a bus as a
platform.
The old AEC Routemaster buses operated in London did
On Sun, Apr 08, 2018 at 12:09:58AM +0200, "Christian Müller" wrote:
> > Sent: Sat, 7 Apr 2018 22:51:40 +0100
> > From: ael
> > To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms
> >
> > > If
On Sun, Apr 08, 2018 at 12:09:58AM +0200, "Christian Müller" wrote:
> > Sent: Sat, 7 Apr 2018 22:51:40 +0100
> > From: ael
> > To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms
> >
> > > If
On Sun, Apr 08, 2018 at 12:09:58AM +0200, "Christian Müller" wrote:
> > Sent: Sat, 7 Apr 2018 22:51:40 +0100
> > From: ael
> > To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms
> >
> > > If
> Sent: Sat, 7 Apr 2018 22:51:40 +0100
> From: ael
> To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms
>
> > If I'm not mistaken, the dictionary is referring the platform *on* the
> > bus [^1], not to the bu
On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 08:11:27PM +0200, Selfish Seahorse wrote:
> On 30 March 2018 at 17:29, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> >
> > according to a dictionary, in BE platform also means “the floor area at the
> > entrance to a bus.” (not necessarily the same as the waiting area) while
> > the same
sent from a phone
On 6. Apr 2018, at 11:04, Selfish Seahorse wrote:
>> in this case you’ll have a platform object and a sidewalk object that happen
>> to be at the same place.
>
> But that way you say that there are two separate objects, which isn't
> true: it's just one physical object that
On 30 March 2018 at 17:29, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> according to a dictionary, in BE platform also means “the floor area at the
> entrance to a bus.” (not necessarily the same as the waiting area) while the
> same dictionary requires for rail based transportation that the platform be
> “r
>> Furthermore,
>> double tagging doesn't work if the sidewalk is called 'X Road' and the
>> bus stop 'Y Square'.
>
>
> in this case you’ll have a platform object and a sidewalk object that happen
> to be at the same place.
But that way you say that there are two separate objects, which isn't
tru
ces.
Greetings
cmuelle8
> Gesendet: Samstag, 31. März 2018 um 09:23 Uhr
> Von: "Selfish Seahorse"
> An: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
> Betreff: Re: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms
>
> Is public_transport=platform n
>
>>> If it is about the structure, then we should decide to either map the
>>> sidewalk or public_transport=platform (depending on how we define a
>>> platform). Otherwise, we say that there are two physical structures,
>>> which is wrong.
>>>
>&
t; which is wrong.
>>
>> On 30 March 2018 at 19:41, "Christian Müller" wrote:
>> >> Gesendet: Freitag, 30. März 2018 um 11:06 Uhr
>> >> Von: "Selfish Seahorse"
>> >> An: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" <
that there are two physical structures,
>> which is wrong.
>>
>> On 30 March 2018 at 19:41, "Christian Müller" wrote:
>> >> Gesendet: Freitag, 30. März 2018 um 11:06 Uhr
>> >> Von: "Selfish Seahorse"
>> >> An: "Tag
; which is wrong.
>
> On 30 March 2018 at 19:41, "Christian Müller" wrote:
> >> Gesendet: Freitag, 30. März 2018 um 11:06 Uhr
> >> Von: "Selfish Seahorse"
> >> An: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" <
> tagging@openstre
ted tools"
>> Betreff: Re: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms
>>
>> I wouldn't call a sidewalk a platform, especially because the waiting
>> area on the sidewalk often isn't clearly delimited. Furthermore,
>> double tagging doe
> Gesendet: Freitag, 30. März 2018 um 11:29 Uhr
> Von: "Selfish Seahorse"
> An: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
> Betreff: Re: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms
>
> In my opinion, it's never too late to look for altern
> Gesendet: Freitag, 30. März 2018 um 11:06 Uhr
> Von: "Selfish Seahorse"
> An: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
> Betreff: Re: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms
>
> I wouldn't call a sidewalk a platform, especially
nd related tools"
Betreff: Re: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms
I don't think a tag is needed for "wild" platforms. As already noted, public_transport=platform applies to nodes already. And shelter=yes/no or bench=yes/no can be added if that's th
sent from a phone
> On 30. Mar 2018, at 11:06, Selfish Seahorse wrote:
>
> Furthermore,
> double tagging doesn't work if the sidewalk is called 'X Road' and the
> bus stop 'Y Square'.
in this case you’ll have a platform object and a sidewalk object that happen to
be at the same place.
chee
sent from a phone
> On 30. Mar 2018, at 08:56, Johnparis wrote:
>
>
> As has been noted elsewhere, public_transport=platform was probably not an
> ideal word choice, perhaps wait_area or some such would have been better, but
> it is what it is.
according to a dictionary, in BE platform al
I rarely do public transport tagging but found that using the new tag for a bus
stop did not render so I had to add the old version of the tag to render. I may
be in error here due to not being very familiar with the transport schemes. You
may call that tagging for the renderer but i see very li
sent from a phone
> On 29. Mar 2018, at 09:37, Topographe Fou wrote:
>
> One thing I never understood was why we have to maintain two schemas
> (probably because consensus was not reached)
it is generally hard in OSM to declare something as better, hence we always
speak about “alternatives
sent from a phone
> On 29. Mar 2018, at 03:56, Daniel Koć wrote:
>
> Double tagging is a problem too
can you please explain what you mean with “double tagging” and what the problem
is?
cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetma
t work if the sidewalk is called 'X Road' and the
> >> bus stop 'Y Square'.
> >>
> >>
> >> On 29 March 2018 at 23:17, "Christian Müller" wrote:
> >> >> Sent: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 19:55:34 +0200
> >> >> From:
.
>>
>>
>> On 29 March 2018 at 23:17, "Christian Müller" wrote:
>> >> Sent: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 19:55:34 +0200
>> >> From: "Selfish Seahorse"
>> >> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
>> >>
>> >> Subj
rse"
> >> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" <
> tagging@openstreetmap.org>
> >> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms
> >>
> >> Or, very often, because there's a sidewalk and, th
d on ground. If this is a problem, because the tag should ideally
>> > discrimnate built structure features, then either
>> >
>> > a) find a new tag for wild platforms
>> > b) allow the platform tag on nodes and use a single node only where a
>> > built
>
more,
double tagging doesn't work if the sidewalk is called 'X Road' and the
bus stop 'Y Square'.
On 29 March 2018 at 23:17, "Christian Müller" wrote:
>> Sent: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 19:55:34 +0200
>> From: "Selfish Seahorse"
>> To: &q
em, because the tag should ideally
> > discrimnate built structure features, then either
> >
> > a) find a new tag for wild platforms
> > b) allow the platform tag on nodes and use a single node only where a
> built
> > platform structure does not exist
> >
Heh, never noticed that.
iD is now automatically putting bus=yes on the platform node, which seems
clearly correct. The proposal page should be amended, I think.
On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 12:33 PM, Selfish Seahorse <
selfishseaho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > It seems that one major issue was that, giv
single node only where a built
> platform structure does not exist
>
> may be an solution.
>
>
> Greetings
> cmuelle8
>
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 29. März 2018 um 13:36 Uhr
> Von: Jo
> An: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
> Betreff: Re: [Taggi
Thanks for that last point, Christian. Always good to read the
documentation! The English version (emphasis mine) reads:
These 'traditional' tags are still widely used and are not invalidated by
this scheme and ***should be kept*** in order to ensure compatibility with
legacy software, at the pric
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dplatform
does have a legacy banner, but contrary
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:public_transport%3Dplatform
writes that legacy tags should co-exist (like in forever)
even if PTv2 tags are present.
If few people read the wiki, then th
> Sent: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 19:55:34 +0200
> From: "Selfish Seahorse"
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms
>
> Or, very often, because there's a sidewalk and, therefore,
W dniu 29.03.2018 o 09:43, Johnparis pisze:
> I have spent some time reading
> https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/435
> and
> https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/331
Great! I will try to do it too, but thanks for the summary anyway.
> It seems that
w tag for wild platforms
> b) allow the platform tag on nodes and use a single node only where a built
> platform structure does not exist
>
> may be an solution.
>
>
> Greetings
> cmuelle8
>
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 29. März 2018 um 13:36 Uhr
> Von: Jo
> An: "
> Sent: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 22:20:21 +0200
> From: "Michael Reichert"
> To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms
>
> - If someone writes such a complicated proposal, he should ask the
> authors of map styl
solution.
Greetings
cmuelle8
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 29. März 2018 um 13:36 Uhr
Von: Jo
An: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
Betreff: Re: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms
That's what I would like to see happen. Last year I created a wik
That's what I would like to see happen. Last year I created a wiki page
about it (with screenshots):
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JOSM/Plugins/PT_Assistant/Mapping_Public_Transport_with_JOSM#Downloading_data
Polyglot
2018-03-29 13:09 GMT+02:00 Selfish Seahorse :
> > Otherwise, public_tra
> Otherwise, public_transport=stop_position could be abandoned, which would
> make PTv2 tagging a lot easier and more time-efficient.
Or at least exclude them from route relations.
On 29 March 2018 at 12:33, Selfish Seahorse wrote:
>> It seems that one major issue was that, given a simple
>>
> It seems that one major issue was that, given a simple
> public_transport=platform situation, which icon should be used to render it?
> In many cases there isn't a {mode}=yes tag.
This is because according to the PTv2 proposal the transportation
vehicle tags (bus=yes, tram=yes etc.) have to be
PT v2 says you CAN map stops using 2 objects. People reading that
understood that you MUST use both a stop_position node and a platform
way/node.
Then it was interpreted as: both of those HAVE TO be added to the route
relations.
To make things look consistent in the route relations, then some map
I have spent some time reading
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/435
and
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/331
It seems that one major issue was that, given a simple
public_transport=platform situation, which icon should be used to render
it? In ma
Hi,
Your intent is to simplify but I don't understand how replacing one tag by
three or more with different syntaxes key/value according to the type of
transportation and their introduction in OSM can make things easier.
I share your view when you say that two schemas is too much to maintain bu
>> Add relations and direction of ways (forwards, backwards) and it's a
very time consuming task to upgrade v1 to v2, especially if bus routes
change.
> Do you mean 'forward' and 'backward' roles?
I think what was meant was that in v2 you want to create a forward relation
and a backward relation,
> Add relations and direction of ways (forwards, backwards) and it's a very
> time consuming task to upgrade v1 to v2, especially if bus routes change.
Do you mean 'forward' and 'backward' roles? They aren't needed because
there is one route relation per direction. Thus 'forward' and
'backward' r
something like this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcS8-g1EGfk
Agustín-
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 19:53:08 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marián Kyral
To: , Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms
Message-ID: <4}.y
W dniu 28.03.2018 o 18:42, Jo pisze:
> I've tried to accomplish that many years ago already, it failed. The
> people at the helm of the rendering stack consider the 'old' tags good
> enough and the new scheme somehow not explicit enough, hence the
> double tagging.
I'm not sure who do you mean, bu
on top of that documentation is not clear atleast when I was trying to
learn how to tag bus routes. The only way I understood was a google hangout
video on youtube(OSM US?) showing how they tagged it.
Add relations and direction of ways (forwards, backwards) and it's a very
time consuming task to
> In my opinion, PTv2 is too complicated, time-consuming and delicate, ...
Sorry, I've meant inefficient, not time-consuming.
On 29 March 2018 at 00:13, Selfish Seahorse wrote:
>> Many people were involved creating those tags, they are well understood and
>> discriminate the features they desc
> Many people were involved creating those tags, they are well understood and
> discriminate the features they describe in a thoroughly documented and
> plausible way.
Apparently these tags aren't that well understood: I rarely encounter
a PTv2 route that doesn't have at least one tagging error
My view, as a person adding things to the data base.
The public transport v2 documentation that I found is not good.
I had difficulty in deciding what to do and
used an iterative approach with the OA tools OSMinspector and JOSM validator to
come up with something that might work.
I'm yet to do
Hi Christian,
Am 28.03.2018 um 16:21 schrieb "Christian Müller":
> In your proposal you complain about subjectively felt things like "history
> won't go away", but at the same time you are trying to revert a part of
> history itself - "the public_transport tags are seven years old now". Many
>
>
> Yes. I like it as well. But it still could be improved. E.g. I'm thinking
> about tool which - If you create four objects: two nodes on highway and two
> nodes/ways beside highway and select all of them - will automatically tag
> them as stop_position and platform and will create corresponding
-- Původní e-mail --
Od: Jo
Komu: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Datum: 28. 3. 2018 18:43:15
Předmět: Re: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms
"
I've tried to accomplish that many years ago already, it failed. The people
at the h
n Müller"
> Komu: tagging@openstreetmap.org
> Datum: 28. 3. 2018 16:22:41
> Předmět: Re: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms
>
> > Sent: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 16:53:28 +0300
> > From: "Ilya Zverev"
> > To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
> &g
-- Původní e-mail --
Od: "Christian Müller"
Komu: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Datum: 28. 3. 2018 16:22:41
Předmět: Re: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms
"> Sent: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 16:53:28 +0300
> From: "Ilya Zverev"
> To: t
I'm not very optimistic you'll manage to get that proposal to pass.
We'll probably keep double tagging everything for a long time to come. The
reason why I put public_transport=platform on bus stop nodes, is that JOSM
conveniently adds a platform role when they are added to relations. Also
because
> Sent: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 16:53:28 +0300
> From: "Ilya Zverev"
> To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms
>
> Hi folks,
>
> A while ago I've made a proposal to deprecate some public_transport=* tags:
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/P
71 matches
Mail list logo