Re: [Talk-transit] Proposed Feature - RFC - Public Transport
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 5:29 AM, Dominik Mahrer (Teddy) te...@teddy.ch wrote: On 12/10/2010 01:45 AM, Richard Mann wrote: highway=bus_stop on a node next to a road railway=tram_stop on a node on railway=tram railway=platform on a node or way or area next to the tram tracks This is how you are using it. It is inconsistent. It is incomplete. It is historic. I don't think you are going to get consensus with that sort of aggressive language (or indeed with any complex proposal that isn't graciously compatible with existing large-scale uses). The only inconsistency is that tram_stop generally refers to a stopping place and bus_stop generally refers to a quay. This is not enough reason to propose changing half a million established tags. Sometimes trams stop at bus_stops and sometimes buses stop at platforms, but that's not a reason to change the tags to something more generic. Relations for stop-groups are generally supported, but data-users need to be able to bundle adjacent stops with the same name for themselves, not rely on the presence of a relation. There appears to be a degree of consensus on using one type=route relation per direction (though it's not entirely clear whether this is really necessary), not worrying overmuch about telescopic routes or occasional diversions, and (groaning but) creating separate relations for routes that branch. Some of the work to implement this is waiting on Potlatch2 (which will have rather better relation support). I think the biggest uncertainty is how you handle loops at the end of a route - do you have overlapping single-direction relations, pick an abritrary position to change direction, or stick with having both directions in the same relation and let the data user worry about it. Richard ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Proposed Feature - RFC - Public Transport
On 12/10/2010 11:20 AM, Richard Mann wrote: I think the biggest uncertainty is how you handle loops at the end of a route - do you have overlapping single-direction relations, pick an abritrary position to change direction, or stick with having both directions in the same relation and let the data user worry about it. I do it this way: end points from the timetable (Kursbuch), so the forward role goes to the last stop indicated in the timetable, and the backward role goes forth. Richard -- Best regards, mit freundlichen Grüssen, meilleurs sentiments, Pozdrowienia, Michał Borsuk ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Proposed Feature - RFC - Public Transport
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 11:11 AM, Michał Borsuk michal.bor...@gmail.com wrote: On 12/10/2010 11:20 AM, Richard Mann wrote: I think the biggest uncertainty is how you handle loops at the end of a route - do you have overlapping single-direction relations, pick an abritrary position to change direction, or stick with having both directions in the same relation and let the data user worry about it. I do it this way: end points from the timetable (Kursbuch), so the forward role goes to the last stop indicated in the timetable, and the backward role goes forth. I was thinking that role=loop on the loop stops might be one way to do it, with role=terminus for single-point route ends (and as a notional terminus on a loop)? This might also avoid the need for role=forward/backward on all the other stops. Richard ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Proposed Feature - RFC - Public Transport
Hi Richard There appears to be a degree of consensus on using one type=route relation per direction (though it's not entirely clear whether this is really necessary), not worrying overmuch about telescopic routes or occasional diversions, and (groaning but) creating separate relations for routes that branch. Some of the work to implement this is waiting on Potlatch2 (which will have rather better relation support). I think the biggest uncertainty is how you handle loops at the end of a route - do you have overlapping single-direction relations, pick an abritrary position to change direction, or stick with having both directions in the same relation and let the data user worry about it. This sounds more to try to find a consensus then all you have written before. It's up to the mapper how much time he/she wants to spend in mapping bus/tram routes. The more time he/she has the more exact the result will be. One simple relation per direction is not more work then only one relation for both directions with complicated roles. If you do not want (or your software can't) create a master relation, just leave it away. Reflecting very complicated variants should be possible for interested power mappers. This is what Oxomoa already wanted to cover nearly two years ago and several mappers are already using. Regards Teddych ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Proposed Feature - RFC - Public Transport
Think of a terminal bus station somewhere in the center of a city. Four bus lines end here. One platform of 50m. The four lines stop always at the same position (line 1 is first,..., line 4 is last). Only one pole for all buses. Where do you place your tags? Or how do you tell where to wait for bus number 4? At the pole that is 40m away from the stop position? It is up to you to use a new schema, or not if you dislike. I usually do not map already mapped routes/stations again, so I do not have to drop an original node. But when I map a new station I map stop position AND platform. On 10.12.2010 14:51, Richard Mann wrote: Dominik/Teddy Please could you explain what situation do highway=bus_stop / highway=platform / railway=platform not cover already, that requires public_transport=platform to be added to the list? If you're not intending to deprecate, then you're just adding complexity. highway=platform is for buses/nonrail railway=platform is for train/tam/rail What should be used if there are buses and trams at the same station? I do not plan to replace existing tags with highway/railway=public_transport, but I will tag unmapped platforms with public_transport=platform. If so this can be done with a bot. highway=bus_stop is used different. Sometimes as stop position, more often as platform/pole. See http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:highway%3Dbus_stop#Results_2010-10-27 The meaning of how highway=bus_stop should be used differ. It can not be replaced easily with a new public_transport tag. Also I think you need to make a clearer case for public_transport=stopping_position. You claim it's needed for routing - but routers currently seem to manage without. The existing tags can cover the simpler situations (starting with a single node, then two or three nodes, then the two nodes become platform ways/areas), and still used for the more-complicated situations (2 platforms / bus_stops), just grouped into a relation (and at which point you might well drop the original single node). Richard ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Proposed Feature - RFC - Public Transport
On 10 December 2010 12:31, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.comwrote: I was thinking that role=loop on the loop stops might be one way to do it, with role=terminus for single-point route ends (and as a notional terminus on a loop)? I think we're talking about two slightly different things. In my area there are a lot of lines which *end* with a loop (instead of a terminal where the direction switches). I think you're referring to a completely circular line, like the yellow line in London, or what is often in Eastern Europe called line 0. If so, then may I ask if we really need this role? Could you provide an example, as I may not completely understand the details? -- Best regards, mit freundlichen Grüssen, meilleurs sentiments, Pozdrowienia, Michał Borsuk ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Proposed Feature - RFC - Public Transport
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 3:31 PM, Dominik Mahrer (Teddy) te...@teddy.ch wrote: Think of a terminal bus station somewhere in the center of a city. Four bus lines end here. One platform of 50m. The four lines stop always at the same position (line 1 is first,..., line 4 is last). Only one pole for all buses. Where do you place your tags? Or how do you tell where to wait for bus number 4? At the pole that is 40m away from the stop position? That'd be four bus stops in the NaPTAN system, the three invisible ones being what they call customary stops (these are far more common in rural areas). I wouldn't recommend the passengers go to the stopping position (not unless I wanted them to be run over). highway=platform is for buses/nonrail railway=platform is for train/tam/rail What should be used if there are buses and trams at the same station? Whichever feels right. I'd probably use highway=platform if you can walk across the tracks at the platform, railway=platform if you can't. Does it matter? highway=bus_stop is used different. Sometimes as stop position, more often as platform/pole. See http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:highway%3Dbus_stop#Results_2010-10-27 The meaning of how highway=bus_stop should be used differ. It can not be replaced easily with a new public_transport tag. I would agree that on-highway highway=bus_stop should be phased out (is anyone saying they should be retained?). I think they're a hangover from the time before we realised that tagging the pole was a better approach. In the mean time, I don't think it causes any major problem (it just isn't as clear as tagging the pole). Richard ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Proposed Feature - RFC - Public Transport
On 12/10/2010 08:55 PM, Richard Mann wrote: I would agree that on-highway highway=bus_stop should be phased out (is anyone saying they should be retained?). I think they're a hangover from the time before we realised that tagging the pole was a better approach. In the mean time, I don't think it causes any major problem (it just isn't as clear as tagging the pole). Many city and/or network public transport wiki pages in central europe recommend to use highway=bus_stop _on_ the way (in coexistence with Oxomoa and unified stoparea and public transport proposal). So highway=bus_stop on the way does not get phased out. Even on the wiki page highway=bus_stop is not clearly defined as _beside_ the way. highway=bus_stop is a fuzzy tag. I do not like this war around this tag. Especially see the German talk page. I would like to approve a tagging schema that is clearly defined. Doing this with new tags is portably the easiest way. Redefining highway=bus_stop on or beside the way seams to be nearly impossible. Again: Have a look at the German talk page. Why is highway=bus_stop recommended to use _on_ the way? Because it does not make sense to have two tags _beside_ the way (highway=bus_stop and highway=platform). The platform definitely is beside the way (It is an approved feature and I never heard other voices). highway=bus_stop _on_ the way would be in consistence with railway=tram_stop. And it would be a stop position. And it would fit unified stoparea. My understanding for those they have put hundreds of tags on/beside the way. They do not want to move them (in which direction ever). Regards Teddych ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Proposed Feature - RFC - Public Transport
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 9:12 PM, Dominik Mahrer (Teddy) te...@teddy.ch wrote: Especially see the German talk page. I would like to approve a tagging schema that is clearly defined. Doing this with new tags is portably the easiest way. Redefining highway=bus_stop on or beside the way seams to be nearly impossible. Again: Have a look at the German talk page. The English-language discussion appears to have long reached a consensus (except for you). My German is not sufficient to follow the discussion, but clearly there are more people arguing each way, and shouting about it. If some people wish to use highway=bus_stop on the road, with highway=platform alongside, that can perfectly well be deciphered by software, and clearly documented as an alternative approach, and tag stats displayed to show which is dominant where. It does not need a public_transport key to confuse matters further. Richard ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Proposed Feature - RFC - Public Transport
On 12/11/2010 12:39 AM, Richard Mann wrote: The English-language discussion appears to have long reached a consensus (except for you). The decision to place highway=bus_stop beside the road has been made before highway=platform existed. Without highway=platform I also would vote for beside the way. Then highway=platform has bin introduced. Beside the way. Since two and a have year we have two tags for a bus stop beside the way. At the same position. This definitely does not make sense. Or does it for you? The decision to place highway=bus_stop was based on the fact that one should be able to see on maps in which direction a bus runs. The need for highway=bus_stop beside the way has been replaced with the approved feature highway=platform. Could you give me an argument why highway=bus_stop should be beside the way? To place highway=bus_stop beside the way is inconsistent and incomplete. If some people wish to use highway=bus_stop on the road, with highway=platform alongside, that can perfectly well be deciphered by software, and clearly documented as an alternative approach, This is the point where we are in the wiki now. And this is very close to unified stoparea. It does not need a public_transport key to confuse matters further. If we define highway=bus_stop *on* the way, we do not need another tag, you are right. Regards Teddych ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
