Re: [Tagging] emergency=first_aid_kit

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Sun, 24 Jun 2018 at 13:56, Bryan Housel  wrote:

> On Jun 23, 2018, at 10:32 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
> wrote:
>
> There should also be a separate page for first aid facility, if you're not
> busy :-)
>
>
> I still think a staffed facility should be something under `healthcare=*`
> - there is lots on that page already.
>

Fair enough. Thought that it would be something to also (?) list under the
Lifeguard heading we've been discussing - if you've "cut your foot", you go
to the lifeguard & he can provide first aid & call an ambulance if required

> Mentioned on the lifeguard thread the other day that the whole Emergency
> area has been getting cleaned up for the last 4 years!
> As we've seen over this last couple of weeks, it really does need it.
> How do we stir up the cleaning process - comment on the discussion page /
> start a thread here / ???
>
>
> Yes!  Start a thread here on the mailing list for general discussion 
>

OK, I'm a glutton for punishment - after all, Lifeguards is only up to ~80
replies by now & nothing really resolved yet! :-)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] emergency=first_aid_kit

[Bryan Housel]

> On Jun 23, 2018, at 10:32 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick  
> wrote:
> 
> There should also be a separate page for first aid facility, if you're not 
> busy :-)

I still think a staffed facility should be something under `healthcare=*` - 
there is lots on that page already.


> Mentioned on the lifeguard thread the other day that the whole Emergency area 
> has been getting cleaned up for the last 4 years!
> As we've seen over this last couple of weeks, it really does need it.
> How do we stir up the cleaning process - comment on the discussion page / 
> start a thread here / ???

Yes!  Start a thread here on the mailing list for general discussion 
I’d avoid using the discussion pages - they have a very limited audience.

If it results in something that somebody can actually do, let’s track it on 
this repo: https://github.com/osmlab/osm-tagging 

I’m already starting to capture some issues there for pages that need cleanup.

thanks, Bryan


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] emergency=first_aid_kit

[Warin]

On 24/06/18 12:32, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:


On Sun, 24 Jun 2018 at 12:00, Bryan Housel > wrote:



Anyway I just moved it to `emergency=first_aid_kit`
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:emergency%3Dfirst_aid_kit



There should also be a separate page for first aid facility, if you're 
not busy :-)


Mentioned on the lifeguard thread the other day that the whole 
Emergency area has been getting cleaned up for the last 4 years!


As we've seen over this last couple of weeks, it really does need it.

How do we stir up the cleaning process - comment on the discussion 
page / start a thread here / ???


Good Luck.
Needs more than a feather duster, and I think more than a vacuum.

Meanwhile I'm trying to resolve some tree issues.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] emergency=first_aid_kit

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Sun, 24 Jun 2018 at 12:00, Bryan Housel  wrote:

>
> Anyway I just moved it to `emergency=first_aid_kit`
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:emergency%3Dfirst_aid_kit
> 
>

There should also be a separate page for first aid facility, if you're not
busy :-)

Mentioned on the lifeguard thread the other day that the whole Emergency
area has been getting cleaned up for the last 4 years!

As we've seen over this last couple of weeks, it really does need it.

How do we stir up the cleaning process - comment on the discussion page /
start a thread here / ???
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] emergency=first_aid_kit

[Bryan Housel]

> Would you object if I changed the page to emergency=first_aid_kit for 
> example?? 

I would not mind at all -  `emergency=first_aid_kit` was what I suggested 
originally.
Someone else made that wiki page and I don’t know why they called it that.

Anyway I just moved it to `emergency=first_aid_kit`
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:emergency%3Dfirst_aid_kit 



Thanks, Bryan






___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] emergency=first_aid

[Warin]

On 24/06/18 09:06, Bryan Housel wrote:
Err .. proposals can be for anything, including sub tags. There 
should be more of it.
Things like the sub tag 'sales' under motorcycle shops could have 
been avoided if that had come to the tagging group.


I would never waste people’s time by writing a proposal for something 
so simple as a first aid kit.
Notifying the tagging list seems like more than enough process for 
introducing a new tag.




Something? If that something is poor then is is not an accomplishment.


You are calling my work poor?  Improve it then.
We’ve been talking about this tag for over a week.


The proposal process requires at least 2 weeks of comment, followed by 
at least 2 weeks of voting.

Your time scale is a little off for the tagging group.
When I arrived here there were proposals that had been sitting for 
years. Years.

I was told off for closing my proposals comment period after 2 weeks ...
this group likes to take time and lots of it.



The value of 'first_aid' could be applied to a 'first aid room' ... 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_aid_room'


The tag is for first aid kits, not rooms.
The value does not imply that. It simply says 'first aid' .. and that 
can be taken in many ways ..
and misapplied despite whatever the wiki page says. See landuse=grass 
for an example.



Most kits are portable, many of them are designed to be portable. are 
these included? No information on the OSMwiki page.


Yes, same as emergency=defibrillator 
  - 
they are portable but generally attached to walls.




73 is not a status of  'in use' 


So change what it says.




And get into an edit war? No thanks.
Would you object if I changed the page to emergency=first_aid_kit for 
example??


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] PTv1 <> PTv2

[marc marc]

Hello,

Le 22. 06. 18 à 15:37, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit :
> is there a benefit from it?

try to map a multimodal station bus+train+tram
with one building + one platform with PTv1
the extend for the station is not the same for a bus and a train
for some ppl, the plafform must not be mapped with the same objet
for the rail (a way) and for a bus (a node only)
so for one "passenger waiting area", sometime osm have 2 objets

try to make a blind routing to a bus stop with PTv1
in some country, routing to the highway=bus_stop is fine,
because it's where ppl wait before jumping into the vehicule
in some country, it's wrong, the highway=bus_stop in the stop_position
part of the highway=* for the vehicule, not for the passenger.

try to make network completeness stats in a region by comparing osm
and opendata data, it's impossible. because of the 2 previous points,
it produces fancy results, some stops have several times even tag
on different object. this is what motivated the francophone community
to migrate entirely in PTv2

with PTv2, you may create only one objet with only one tag and
add this objet to the type=route relation
so it's never mandatory to do "more work" with PTv2 than in PTv1.
But the meaning a tag with PTv2 is the same for all transport mode
in all country. that's the goal and the major improvement.

Regard,
Marc
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] drop covered=booth?

[Warin]

On 24/06/18 08:55, Bryan Housel wrote:


On Jun 23, 2018, at 6:00 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:


We’re not adding `booth=yes` to all phones.  Just the ones that
- don’t already have a `booth=*` tag and

That is not right. If they don't have a booth=* tag then don't think that these 
all have a booth.
So I would not add a tag here that maybe wrong.


- do have a `covered=booth` tag

This is correct .. they have a booth so adding booth=yes is correct.


It sounds like you are very confused.


Yes..



I’ll try again.

The only features I’m modifying have the tags `amenity=telephone` and 
`covered=booth`.
I will change `covered=booth` to `covered=yes`
I will add a tag `booth=yes` but only if there is not already an existing 
`booth*` tag.


Good for the booth=yes.



The reason I’m doing this is so that we can offer users a `covered` checkbox 
for the telephone preset in iD.
This checkbox really wants to assign values like `yes` and `no` -- not `booth`.
Make sense?


Sense .. yes of a sort.

But the offering of a covered check box is not a good idea.
It is not the same as a 'booth'. A booth will usually have 3 sides as well as a 
top - this aides hearing and speech to the telephone.
Sometimes the sides are not very large and you have to lean in .. but they help 
a lot in noisy circumstances.

A 'covering' may just be a shop awing - separate from the phone but still a 
covering. Or the phone could be under a stairway or bridge, all coverings but 
not a booth.

Words are important particularly when used singularly and also with people who 
are not that familiar with the language.

Take care.


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] emergency=first_aid

[marc marc]

Hello Bryan,

Le 23. 06. 18 à 18:28, Bryan Housel a écrit :
> 
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:emergency=first_aid
> 
> So that’s the tag.  Be glad we accomplished something!

You confuse speed and quality.
If I read well, only 2 ppl are in favor of first_aid value,
all other disagree.

first_aid is a UGLY value, as ugly as the others you decry
since there is no doubt that there will be confusion between
the first aid facility and the first aid kit

I ask myself how you known the current meaning of emergency=first_aid
how did you choice if it's a kit or a facility ?
imho, emergency=first_aid should be tagged a "warrning unknown meaning"
and a good propal should be :
health_facility:type=first_aid_facility where a staff is available
emergency_first_aid_kit where it's a only box.

Regards,
Marc
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] emergency=first_aid

[Bryan Housel]

> Err .. proposals can be for anything, including sub tags. There should be 
> more of it.
> Things like the sub tag 'sales' under motorcycle shops could have been 
> avoided if that had come to the tagging group. 

I would never waste people’s time by writing a proposal for something so simple 
as a first aid kit.
Notifying the tagging list seems like more than enough process for introducing 
a new tag.


> Something? If that something is poor then is is not an accomplishment. 

You are calling my work poor?  Improve it then.
We’ve been talking about this tag for over a week.


> The value of 'first_aid' could be applied to a 'first aid room' ... 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_aid_room 
> '

The tag is for first aid kits, not rooms.


> Most kits are portable, many of them are designed to be portable. are these 
> included? No information on the OSMwiki page. 

Yes, same as emergency=defibrillator 
  - they are 
portable but generally attached to walls.


> 73 is not a status of  'in use' 

So change what it says.  


Thanks ,Bryan

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] drop covered=booth?

[Bryan Housel]

> On Jun 23, 2018, at 6:00 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> We’re not adding `booth=yes` to all phones.  Just the ones that
>> - don’t already have a `booth=*` tag and
> 
> That is not right. If they don't have a booth=* tag then don't think that 
> these all have a booth.
> So I would not add a tag here that maybe wrong.
> 
>> - do have a `covered=booth` tag
> 
> This is correct .. they have a booth so adding booth=yes is correct.


It sounds like you are very confused.

I’ll try again.

The only features I’m modifying have the tags `amenity=telephone` and 
`covered=booth`.
I will change `covered=booth` to `covered=yes`
I will add a tag `booth=yes` but only if there is not already an existing 
`booth*` tag.

The reason I’m doing this is so that we can offer users a `covered` checkbox 
for the telephone preset in iD.
This checkbox really wants to assign values like `yes` and `no` -- not `booth`.
Make sense?

Thanks, Bryan


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tower:type=suspension

[Warin]

When I first see tower:type I think of how it is constructed .. not its 
function.



So for me it should be tower:function=*


The value 'suspension' could be for rope or wire ...

If wire it could be for a cable car, hauling logs, transmission of 
information (even fibre optic cable), transmission of electrical energy, 
...



This value may suit the mapper who cannot identify what the actual 
function is .. but it would need sub tags to further specify the 
function ('type').




On 23/06/18 23:44, osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au wrote:


Not in any way involved with power mapping, but I don’t think 
tower:type should have necessarily any implications about what it is 
that’s being transmitted over the suspended cables.


In the specific case of power=tower, while I guess 
tower:type=suspension might be considered the “default” value, the 
default, still needs to be a “defined” value. Tagging of 
tower:type=suspension can then be a way to indicate that someone 
actually looked at it and made a determination in regards to what type 
of tower it is, while the absence of the tag means that while it 
probably is a suspension tower, no body has looked close enough to 
make sure yet.


As for the wiki page, it should probably show the same information 
that https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tower:type shows for 
tower:type=suspension, that is:


“A tower which supports the conductors vertically using suspension 
insulators. This is the default type and need not be tagged. However 
it may be useful to tag a suspension tower if it is used as an angle 
tower (an anchor tower would normally be expected here)”.


*From:*Martin Koppenhoefer 
*Sent:* Saturday, 23 June 2018 23:24
*To:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 


*Subject:* [Tagging] tower:type=suspension

One of the most used values for tower:type is "suspension". Is this an 
alternative way of saying power=tower or is there more behind it?


If you can provide information, please amend the wiki page stub:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tower:type%3Dsuspension

Cheers,

Martin



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] drop covered=booth?

[Warin]

On 24/06/18 03:07, Bryan Housel wrote:


Somebody has already posted a picture to the list of a public phone with no 
hood, no booth, and no cover, so
adding booth=yes to all phones could be an error.

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

We’re not adding `booth=yes` to all phones.  Just the ones that
- don’t already have a `booth=*` tag and


That is not right. If they don't have a booth=* tag then don't think that these 
all have a booth.

So I would not add a tag here that maybe wrong.


- do have a `covered=booth` tag


This is correct .. they have a booth so adding booth=yes is correct.

 



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] drop covered=booth?

[Paul Allen]

On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 6:07 PM, Bryan Housel  wrote:

> > Somebody has already posted a picture to the list of a public phone with
> no hood, no booth, and no cover, so
> > adding booth=yes to all phones could be an error.
>
> Are you being deliberately obtuse?
>

I am not being deliberately obtuse.  Accidentally obtuse, perhaps.

What you wrote was this:

We'll replace all instances of covered=booth with covered=yes

I don't see the point of that if we're trying to lose covered=* on phone
booths.  I thought
moving to booth=* was to avoid having covered=* for phones.  If it has a
booth it's
covered so you don't need to tag it as covered.  So what am I missing?
 and add a booth=yes to any features that don't already have a booth tag.”

Obviously I parsed it wrong.  I parsed it as I split it above, two
sequential and independent
actions.  I wasn't expecting short-circuit evaluation of that particular
and expression.

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] drop covered=booth?

[Bryan Housel]

Looks like we can wrap up discussion on this.
Per Paul Allen’s suggestion, mappers can continue use `covered=yes` for 
telephones with a hood.
Opened https://github.com/osmlab/osm-tagging/issues/8 
  to track next actions for 
this.

"Consensus on list is that covered=booth offers no additional information over 
booth=* and conflicts with existing semantics for covered=yes/no. We'll replace 
all instances of covered=booth with covered=yes and add a booth=yes to any 
features that don't already have a booth tag.”

Thanks, 
Bryan




> On Jun 19, 2018, at 9:41 AM, Bryan Housel  wrote:
> 
> Sounds good to me.
> We can leave the thread open a few more days to see if anyone cares that much 
> about `covered=booth`.
> I think 5 days is plenty.
> 
> If nobody is using it, I’ll open an issue on 
> https://github.com/osmlab/osm-tagging  
> on or around June 23 to start the cleanup..
> 
> As always, looking for volunteers to do the actual work of replacing the tags 
> and cleaning up the wiki.
> 
> Thanks, Bryan
> 

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] emergency=first_aid

[Bryan Housel]

> On Jun 23, 2018, at 10:58 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote:
> +1, if you want to describe the position of a first aid kit, a sensible tag 
> seems emergency=first_aid_kid
> For a staffed location where you go for first aid, emergency=first_aid seems 
> ok (I’d rather use something more verbose like first_aid_station or facility 
> to avoid confusing them with the kits).

Let’s just keep this scoped to first aid kits.  If it was staffed location, I’d 
probably use something under `healthcare=*`  (maybe `clinic`)  
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:healthcare#Values 



> Generally, it is not OK to set up wiki pages for rarely used tags out from 
> nothing, they should be added as proposals to make it easier for 
> inexperienced mappers to distinguish established tags from adhoc drafts 
> without consolidated content.

Yes it is OK to
- invent a new tag value and 
- setup a wiki page for it and 
- notify the tagging list.  

People do this all the time (maybe without notifying the tagging list, but 
let’s encourage more of that).

Proposals should only be for when we’re inventing a new toplevel key or 
introducing a change that affects a lot of things (like PTv2, healthcare, etc). 
 I see a lot of proposal misuse and proposals that shouldn’t be proposals in 
the first place - let’s stop doing this.


FWIW, someone else already made the wiki page.  I’ve cleaned it up and added 
the preset to iD.

> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:emergency=first_aid 
> 
So that’s the tag.  Be glad we accomplished something!

Thanks,  Bryan


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tower:type=suspension

[osm.tagging]

Not in any way involved with power mapping, but I don’t think tower:type should 
have necessarily any implications about what it is that’s being transmitted 
over the suspended cables.

 

In the specific case of power=tower, while I guess tower:type=suspension might 
be considered the “default” value, the default, still needs to be a “defined” 
value. Tagging of tower:type=suspension can then be a way to indicate that 
someone actually looked at it and made a determination in regards to what type 
of tower it is, while the absence of the tag means that while it probably is a 
suspension tower, no body has looked close enough to make sure yet.

 

As for the wiki page, it should probably show the same information that 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tower:type shows for 
tower:type=suspension, that is:

 

“A tower which supports the conductors vertically using suspension insulators. 
This is the default type and need not be tagged. However it may be useful to 
tag a suspension tower if it is used as an angle tower (an anchor tower would 
normally be expected here)”.

 

From: Martin Koppenhoefer  
Sent: Saturday, 23 June 2018 23:24
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
Subject: [Tagging] tower:type=suspension

 

One of the most used values for tower:type is "suspension". Is this an 
alternative way of saying power=tower or is there more behind it?

 

If you can provide information, please amend the wiki page stub:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tower:type%3Dsuspension

 

Cheers,

Martin

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] iD presets

[Mateusz Konieczny]

22. Jun 2018 19:44 by kevin.b.kenny+...@gmail.com 
:


> It's better to choose tags that will make the job of
> consuming the data easier, even if that makes for a small amount of
> additional work for the mapper. (Within reason, of course!)
>




I would agree with it only in cases where minimal additional work vastly

improved ease of data processing.




Generally, I would go with what makes entering and maintaining data 


easiest.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] public_transport=platform rendering on osm-carto

[Peter Elderson]

Don't know the PT scheme, but  if you want to route over different
transport methods, you'll have to connect the routes somehow.

2018-06-23 10:28 GMT+02:00 Jo :

> Op za 23 jun. 2018 om 10:26 schreef Peter Elderson :
>
>> I think a bus stop node on the bus route is exactly what is needed to
>> route people from anywhere to anywhere. You connect the pedestrian route to
>> the bus route at that point. It does not really matter if the route
>> includes a platform way, or a platform node, as long as it's part of the
>> pedestrian route from the stop to any other routable way.
>>
>
> By on the bus route, you mean as part of the highway? If you do that, we
> can't easily see on which side of the road the stop is located.
>
> Polyglot
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>


-- 
Vr gr Peter Elderson
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] public_transport=platform rendering on osm-carto

[Jo]

Op za 23 jun. 2018 om 10:26 schreef Peter Elderson :

> I think a bus stop node on the bus route is exactly what is needed to
> route people from anywhere to anywhere. You connect the pedestrian route to
> the bus route at that point. It does not really matter if the route
> includes a platform way, or a platform node, as long as it's part of the
> pedestrian route from the stop to any other routable way.
>

By on the bus route, you mean as part of the highway? If you do that, we
can't easily see on which side of the road the stop is located.

Polyglot
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] public_transport=platform rendering on osm-carto

[Jo]

>
> You forgot to mention that  PTv2 complicates tagging
>
> and processing by requiring to add also bus=yes.
>
>
> As I do not like entering two tags where one fits well I continue
>
> and will continue and want to continue mapping bus stops
>
> solely as highway=bust_stop.
>
>
> bu stop is also not some obscure object what would justify
>
> complicating its tagging.
>

On the highway? or beside it? If beside it, I agree with you. When I add
your bus stops to a route relation using JOSM, they get a stop role though.
No biggie. But that was the reason why I started adding those
public_transport=platform tags to them, or at least that's why I continued
to do so.

Polyglot
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] public_transport=platform rendering on osm-carto

[Peter Elderson]

I think a bus stop node on the bus route is exactly what is needed to route
people from anywhere to anywhere. You connect the pedestrian route to the
bus route at that point. It does not really matter if the route includes a
platform way, or a platform node, as long as it's part of the pedestrian
route from the stop to any other routable way.

That's what I think.

2018-06-23 0:55 GMT+02:00 Graeme Fitzpatrick :

> On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 at 19:36, Martin Koppenhoefer 
> wrote:
>
> Have been following this whole conversation with interest (&, I must
> admit, some confusion!).
>
> Not wanting to be at all awkward :-), but if
>
> The stop_position is the spot where the vehicle stops, it is not strictly
>> needed for routing (of pedestrians) but the bus needs to know where to stop
>> (doesn't typically need OSM navigation to drive his bus though).
>>
>
> then why are we all worrying so much about stop positions? The driver
> knows he has to stop at this location, & (I'm pretty certain! :-)) he's not
> staring at his phone / GPS to see if OSM says he at's exactly the right
> spot on the ground to stop the bus!
>
> Or are we making provision for fully autonomous driverless buses, relying
> on OSM for guidance to find their correct stops? :-)
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>


-- 
Vr gr Peter Elderson
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] public_transport=platform rendering on osm-carto

[Jo]

It is not needed to have a platform. In that sense the
public_transport=platform is a misnomer for the node that represents the
bus/tram stop., but it is what was decided we would use.

Maybe we should come up with a v3 where that node gets a different value,
say public_transport=passengers_zone/area/spot. But it really doesn't
matter, as long as we don't interpret the word platform in
public_transport=platform literally when applied to nodes.

All that we need is a node that represents the bus or tram stop, which is
the only object that contains all its properties as tags and which is the
only object that needs to be added to the route relations.

Even for longer platforms the platform could be drawn as an area and the
approximate location whete the passengers are supposed to wait for (their
section of) the train can be marked with such nodes. Still no stop_postion
nodes needed on the railway.

The whole reason why we started marking the stations on the railway ways
themselves, is that all the way in the beginning a decade ago, we never
imagined the level of detail we are mapping at nowadays would be feasible.

So railways where represented with a single OSM way for several tracks. If
you work at that level of abstraction, it makes sense to add the stations
as nodes on those OSM ways. We continued doing this when we started mapping
each track as an OSM way and it spread to tram lines.

Nowadays it doesn't make sense anymore. What cam instead is that for some
unfathomable reason it is considered alright to duplicate details across
several objects and then more than one of these objects would need to be
added to the route relations.

It's not too late to rethink this and go for a solution that scales well
and is easy to understand for anyone.

By scaling well, I mean thatt the node that represents a stop, does not
need to be converted to a way at any moment in its lifetime.

For those stops that do have platforms, we can add them as separate
way/area objects. No need to add name/ref/etc to them, no need to add them
to the route relations. The nodes that represent the stops have that
function.

Polyglot

Op za 23 jun. 2018 om 10:07 schreef Markus Lindholm <
markus.lindh...@gmail.com>:

> On Fri, 2018-06-22 at 08:05 +, marc marc wrote:
> > Le 22. 06. 18 à 01:26, Yves a écrit :
> > > Why adding 'platform' where there's no physical platform?
> >
> > public_transport=platform describe where passagers wait
> > for a public transport.
> > if there is no dedicated area, use a node outside the road/rail
> > near the bus stop or near the railroad stop
>
> I believe this is one of the flaws of PTv2
>
> - The disconnect between tagging and reality.
>
> Probably the majority of the bus stops out there are without a platform
> of any kind. There is a pole, a shelter or a semaphore of some kind,
> but you couldn't find anything that anyone would point at and say
> 'That's the platform'
>
> /Markus
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] public_transport=platform rendering on osm-carto

[Mateusz Konieczny]

23. Jun 2018 05:17 by osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au 
:


> highway=bus_stop, currently tagged beside the road -> 
> public_transport=platform
> highway=tram_stop, currently tagged on the rail -> 
> public_transport=stop_position
>
> homogenizing these to public_transport=platform and 
> public_transport=stop_position and allowing either or both to be defined for 
> each stop is one of the central ways how PTv2 simplifies tagging.




You forgot to mention that  PTv2 complicates tagging 


and processing by requiring to add also bus=yes.




As I do not like entering two tags where one fits well I continue 


and will continue and want to continue mapping bus stops 


solely as highway=bust_stop.




bu stop is also not some obscure object what would justify

complicating its tagging.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] public_transport=platform rendering on osm-carto

[Markus Lindholm]

On Fri, 2018-06-22 at 08:05 +, marc marc wrote:
> Le 22. 06. 18 à 01:26, Yves a écrit :
> > Why adding 'platform' where there's no physical platform?
> 
> public_transport=platform describe where passagers wait
> for a public transport.
> if there is no dedicated area, use a node outside the road/rail
> near the bus stop or near the railroad stop

I believe this is one of the flaws of PTv2

- The disconnect between tagging and reality.

Probably the majority of the bus stops out there are without a platform
of any kind. There is a pole, a shelter or a semaphore of some kind,
but you couldn't find anything that anyone would point at and say
'That's the platform'

/Markus

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging