Re: [Tagging] Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 at 10:11, marc marc wrote: > > Le 21.08.19 à 09:58, Markus a écrit : > > Otherwise, we need a new relation (maybe type=stop_position?) to > > connect the stop position to the waiting area > > imho that's why stop_area relation exist According to the wiki,

Re: [Tagging] Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

typo: references -> Preferences. Vr gr Peter Elderson Op wo 21 aug. 2019 om 11:13 schreef Peter Elderson : > I have now seen PT stop discussions a gazillion times. The references and > differences reflect the different usages people have in mind, from: I just > want to map what's visible on the

Re: [Tagging] Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

I have now seen PT stop discussions a gazillion times. The references and differences reflect the different usages people have in mind, from: I just want to map what's visible on the ground, to Support every thinkable way of linking, routing, planning and navigating. Just saying. Fr gr Peter

Re: [Tagging] Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

Indeed, but I don't think it makes sense to use them for each and every stop On Wed, Aug 21, 2019, 10:11 marc marc wrote: > Le 21.08.19 à 09:58, Markus a écrit : > > Otherwise, we need a new relation (maybe type=stop_position?) to > > connect the stop position to the waiting area > > imho

Re: [Tagging] Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

Le 21.08.19 à 09:58, Markus a écrit : > Otherwise, we need a new relation (maybe type=stop_position?) to > connect the stop position to the waiting area imho that's why stop_area relation exist ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 at 05:55, Michael Tsang wrote: > > I think there is a need for public_transport=stop_position. Although 99.9% of > the cases the bus stops directly at the platform, there are some edge cases > where the bus does not stop at the platform due to practical reasons, i.e. the >

Re: [Tagging] Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

On Mon, 2019-08-05 at 00:51 +0200, Janko Mihelić wrote: > And nothing renders anyway. So why don't we just start using other > public_transport values, like pole, waiting_area, and whatever we > want. We just start using them, and give them the "platform" role in > the relations. Rendering will

Re: [Tagging] Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

Isn't the only thing that matters, for routing at least, the name of the role that the platform has? I mean, anything can have the role "platform". Highway=bus_stop can have the role platform. And nothing renders anyway. So why don't we just start using other public_transport values, like pole,

Re: [Tagging] Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

On Sunday, August 4, 2019 2:21:11 PM EDT Jo wrote: > On Sun, Aug 4, 2019, 16:40 Martin Koppenhoefer > > wrote: > > it is just an excuse to insist on using pt=platform for things that aren’t > > platforms and justify it with saying it means waiting area. > > I don’t think we should define

Re: [Tagging] Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

On Sun, Aug 4, 2019, 16:40 Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > it is just an excuse to insist on using pt=platform for things that aren’t > platforms and justify it with saying it means waiting area. > I don’t think we should define pt=platform for something different than a > public transport

Re: [Tagging] Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 at 16:40, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > it is just an excuse to insist on using pt=platform for things that aren’t > platforms and justify it with saying it means waiting area. To quote the PTv2 proposal page: "The platform is the place where passengers are waiting for the

Re: [Tagging] Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

> If you want a waiting area tag, name it like this. I *would* agree with this, but public_transport=platform is already quite established. Changing tags is worse than having badly named tags. Leif Rasmussen On Sun, Aug 4, 2019, 4:40 PM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > sent from a phone > > >

Re: [Tagging] Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

sent from a phone > On 4. Aug 2019, at 15:03, Markus wrote: > > Unfortunately it doesn't mean a real platform, but a waiting area (see > also Polyglot's message). If it would have meant a real platform, > there were no PTv2 tag for the waiting area of a stop without > platform, which is the

Re: [Tagging] Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 at 13:50, yo paseopor wrote: > > Trains stops in a specific point. Here in Spain they have some sign that > says=Cabeza de tren (Head's line) . It is important because when you do a map > that can be used by the public transport user, but also the public_transport > driver

Re: [Tagging] Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

> highway=platform and/or railway=platform are needed, because >> public_transport=platform doesn't mean a platform, but a waiting area. >> And a waiting areas doesn't need to be a platform: some waiting areas >> are just poles or signs beside the road [1], others are located on the >> sidewalk

Re: [Tagging] Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 9:24 PM Markus wrote: > Hi! > > On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 at 20:38, yo paseopor wrote: > > > > We need a new way of following the scheme. I think all the features are > needed: stop positions, platforms and stop area. [...] > > Could you please give me an example where stop

Re: [Tagging] Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

Sure, network= and operator= are useful, but the are not required. Minibus services, the most common public transit in Indonesia, have no operator here; every vehicle is privately owned and operated. Joseph On Sun, Aug 4, 2019 at 6:16 AM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > sent from a phone > >

Re: [Tagging] Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

sent from a phone > On 3. Aug 2019, at 03:19, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > > But really all we need is highway=bus_stop + name=* or ref=* - 2 tags, > to define a bus stop. And the route relation needs either the stops or > the highways added (you could add both, but this isn't really >

Re: [Tagging] Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

Hi! On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 at 20:38, yo paseopor wrote: > > We need a new way of following the scheme. I think all the features are > needed: stop positions, platforms and stop area. [...] Could you please give me an example where stop positions are needed? In my experience, mapping stop positions

Re: [Tagging] Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

Hi Daniel On Fri, 2 Aug 2019 at 22:21, Daniel Koć wrote: > > Routing software is reliable only if it connects points on the roads. How > would you propose to do it without them? At best, stops (waiting areas) should be connected to the pedestrian road network, but they don't need to be

Re: [Tagging] Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

We need a new way of following the scheme. I think all the features are needed: stop positions, platforms and stop area.Well , at first sight would seem complicated...but if you want to map a big station you have to use a complicated system. And this system when you know how it works it is fast

Re: [Tagging] Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

For a few years now, I've been considering to make a proposal for mapping PT in a simpler way. I haven't done it because it's a lot of work and there will always be quite a few mappers who prefer the status quo. Anyway, I think we need 1 object which has all the properties of a stop as tags and

Re: [Tagging] Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

Re: > The relation needs both stops and ways Sure, it's nice for rendering the have the ways, but it's not always necessary. There are 2 cases where you can only do one or the other 1) Stops only: The buses don't always take the same route between stops, but just take whatever way is fastest.

Re: [Tagging] Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

On 03/08/19 11:19, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: Yes, the only thing that needs to be changed is the documentation, in my opinion. We don't need more tags, and it's not even necessary to officially "deprecate" anything. Right now some pages suggest that a bus stop needs to be tagged highway=bus_stop

Re: [Tagging] Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

Yes, the only thing that needs to be changed is the documentation, in my opinion. We don't need more tags, and it's not even necessary to officially "deprecate" anything. Right now some pages suggest that a bus stop needs to be tagged highway=bus_stop + public_transport=platform + bus=yes at the

Re: [Tagging] Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

On 03/08/19 11:03, Daniel Koć wrote: W dniu 03.08.2019 o 02:28, Joseph Eisenberg pisze: Consider also how you would route someone from a amenity=cafe node in a building to a shop=* area in another building across the city, by car. You have to jump from the node to the nearest highway, follow

Re: [Tagging] Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

W dniu 03.08.2019 o 02:28, Joseph Eisenberg pisze: > Consider also how you would route someone from a amenity=cafe node in > a building to a shop=* area in another building across the city, by > car. You have to jump from the node to the nearest highway, follow the > highways to the other side of

Re: [Tagging] Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

On 03/08/19 10:28, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: Many transit routing services use the GTFS standard for transit, which includes bus stops placed at the side of the road, not directly connected to any road line features. The routing engine just has to find the closest point on the transit routing

Re: [Tagging] Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

Many transit routing services use the GTFS standard for transit, which includes bus stops placed at the side of the road, not directly connected to any road line features. The routing engine just has to find the closest point on the transit routing graph by following highway=* ways. Consider also

Re: [Tagging] Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

W dniu 02.08.2019 o 17:07, Markus pisze: > On Friday, August 2, 2019, Daniel Koć > wrote: > > Without using stop_positions, updating public transport routes in > a (semi-)automated way in a big city (like Warsaw) would be > impossible: > >

Re: [Tagging] Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

I don't see an issue either. The stop positions, if needed, can just be generated from bus stops / platforms. -Leif Rasmussen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

On Friday, August 2, 2019, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > See "One Feature, One OSM Element" - separate feature tags should not > be added to the same database object, if at all possible. > > [...] > > I also consider "bus, tram and train stations could all be tagged > alike" as a disadvantage since

Re: [Tagging] Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

W dniu 02.08.2019 o 15:53, Janko Mihelić pisze: > If we removed stop_positions, that makes creating public transport > relations much easier. I'm not involved in this detailed discussion, so I apologise if I don't get everyting, but better be safe than sorry... Without using stop_positions,

Re: [Tagging] Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

pet, 2. kol 2019. u 15:34 Markus napisao je: > I still see these solutions: > > 1. To rename public_transport=platform into public_transport=stop (or > public_transport=waiting_area) and to abandon > public_transport=stop_position as well as the PTv1 tags. This would have > the advantage that

Re: [Tagging] Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

> "only need one element even if there is a platform" See "One Feature, One OSM Element" - separate feature tags should not be added to the same database object, if at all possible. This is particularly a problem with platforms, which can be mapped as nodes, lines or areas. That means a way

Re: [Tagging] Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

On Friday, August 2, 2019, yo paseopor wrote: > > The only negative point for public transport v2 scheme was the > no-deprecation of the old scheme to avoid duplicities (surely was done this > to don't uncomfort people) > Salut i transport públic (Health and public_transport) > yopaseopor > IMHO

Re: [Tagging] Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

Yes, one ring (one key=one value) for all kind of public transports because it is easier to say this key and then what kind of transport do you have in. It's better: public_transport=stop_position or public_transport=platform and then bus,tram,train,subway,ferry,helicopter,UFO, future's

Re: [Tagging] Was public_transport=platform intended to > always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

On Thursday, August 1, 2019, Philip Barnes wrote: > > It is probably true that for a particular train, at a particular time, > will normally use the same platform you cannot assume that all trains > to a particular destination will always use the same platform. > > [...] > > As a regular rail

Re: [Tagging] Was public_transport=platform intended to > always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

On Wed, 2019-07-31 at 18:48 +0200, Markus wrote: > On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 at 15:08, Peter Neale via Tagging > wrote: > > Within the station there will normally be several platforms, which > > may be named "Platform 1", "Platform 2"... ...or "Platform A", > > "Platform B" etc. These could / should

Re: [Tagging] Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

sent from a phone > On 1. Aug 2019, at 02:59, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > > Ferries use just amenity=ferry_terminal and route=ferry. You can also map the > man_made=pier as the equivalent of a “platform”. yes, although there is also a proposal for seaway=ferry_port which is suitable for

Re: [Tagging] Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

W dniu 01.08.2019 o 02:56, Joseph Eisenberg pisze: > I’m not certain if any database users actually manage stop_area > relations for public transit? I'm not sure if you ask if stop_area tag is useful at all or you ask only about such relation. In Warsaw there are like 300 lines, if I remember

Re: [Tagging] Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

Ferries use just amenity=ferry_terminal and route=ferry. You can also map the man_made=pier as the equivalent of a “platform”. Similarly, aerialways like gondolas have their own station tag, aerialway=station. The public_transport tags have never been popular for ferries or “aerialways”. On

Re: [Tagging] Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

If you read the talk page of the proposal,it’s clear that the stop_area relations are optional. I actually think that needs to be further clarified in the main text. I’m not certain if any database users actually manage stop_area relations for public transit? The ref can go on just the

Re: [Tagging] Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

Ferries also seam to be forgotten... public_transport=platform??? Covers ferry, bus, train, trams ... ?? (One ring to rule them all etc) With regard to ref. I have bus stops that have 'Stand A' etc near train stations. these also carry a reference number that is used by the transport company

Re: [Tagging] Was public_transport=platform intended to > always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

For platform numbers or letters I've seen local_ref being used succesfully. For train platforms it is also possible they are divided into zones, where one part of the train may have one destination, and the other another destination. Such trains are split either in that station or a subsequent

Re: [Tagging] Was public_transport=platform intended to > always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

Hi Markus, Thank you for your comments. I stand corrected on the Name v. Ref issue.  You are right; it would be better to map a platform and tag it with Ref= . As regards your other comment; I stand by my view that it is useful to know which services stop at a given station, but that any user

Re: [Tagging] Was public_transport=platform intended to > always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 at 15:08, Peter Neale via Tagging wrote: > > Within the station there will normally be several platforms, which may be > named "Platform 1", "Platform 2"... ...or "Platform A", "Platform B" etc. > These could / should be mapped and given an name tag. Common practice is to

Re: [Tagging] Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 at 13:52, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > > Agreed, there are enough tags for public transport already. I don't > think anything new is needed. My idea was actually to replace the misnamed public_transport=platform with public_transport=stop and to abandon highway=bus_stop and

Re: [Tagging] Was public_transport=platform intended to > always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

FWIW, I agree; No more tags, please, when we can manage with those that we have. Busses stop at bus-stops and the route information shows which bus-stops they serve and the times when they are due there, so these should be tagged with ID, Ref Number, etc. as appropriate.   A platform is a raised

Re: [Tagging] Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

bus_bay = right | left | both ( https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/485293336 ) For me the object that represents the bus stop, is always a simple node. I don't see a problem for doing that in bus stations as well. If there are actual platforms, whether in a bus station or somewhere along a

Re: [Tagging] Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 at 12:52, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > Agreed, there are enough tags for public transport already. I don't > think anything new is needed. > There's something I haven't found a way of mapping. That's a bus stop where there's a bay inlet into the pavement (aka sidewalk, aka

Re: [Tagging] Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

Agreed, there are enough tags for public transport already. I don't think anything new is needed. If there is a platform where buses stop, then there's a bus stop, and a platform. The platform is a physical feature, and I believe it would still be a highway=platform even if the bus service were

Re: [Tagging] Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

please: NO MORE TAGS Either... can we mix all the tags of all the versions of Public transport into a UNIQUE scheme for ALL kinds of transports, tagging it at the same way with the same name: from electric autonomous buses to new Uber's helicopters? A scheme has to be scalable. Can we define that?

Re: [Tagging] Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

Hi Joseph On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 at 15:59, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > > I still haven't seen any benefit in adding public_transport=platform > to highway=bus_stop or highway=platform or railway=platform features, > and it doesn't look like the =stop_position tag is needed for routers > either, so

Re: [Tagging] Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

I got the information about the origin of the dispute about highway=bus_stop next to or on the way from this page: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:highway%3Dbus_stop#Contradictions_in_the_wiki "In the early days of OSM, the bus stops were mapped beside the street simply because the

Re: [Tagging] Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

Am Di., 30. Juli 2019 um 11:47 Uhr schrieb Jo : > By the way, I don't think the 'schism' of some people/countries mapping > the stops as nodes of/on the highway and others nodes/ways next to the > highway comes from an import in Switzerland. I think it came from habits in > mapping of railway

Re: [Tagging] Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

By the way, I don't think the 'schism' of some people/countries mapping the stops as nodes of/on the highway and others nodes/ways next to the highway comes from an import in Switzerland. I think it came from habits in mapping of railway infrastructure. At one point, we had a single way for

Re: [Tagging] Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

duplicating information across multiple objects. I found that what works best is to have nodes on the side of the road to represent the stops. These nodes have positional information and can carry all the tags for the details. If there is an actual elevated platform, it can be represented by a

Re: [Tagging] Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

A bus stop, a place where a bus halts to pick up and drop off passengers is both real and current. Tying it to a geographic object can be done in various ways, as we've shown over the past years. I read the wiki a few times over the past years and then I started looking for something that works,

Re: [Tagging] Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

I think you might be referring to this proposal from Zverik last summer, which suggests stopping using public_transport=stop_position/platform/station, but keeps the relations: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Refined_Public_Transport - =stop_position is not really needed for

Re: [Tagging] Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

Hi This is not a criticism of Joseph. This post confirms what I've been saying for the past year - PT tags add nothing but confusion to OSM, which directly leads to errors. highway=bus_stop is a completely separate tag to any in the PT schema. It was created long before the invention of the

[Tagging] Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

I read up on the rather exhausting history of public transport tagging. The strange thing is that the approved proposal which introduced public_transport=* and the current public_transport pages suggest using bus=yes only for public_transport=stop_position. In contrast, public_transport=platform