Re: [Tagging] Attendant on amenity=fuel

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 30. Mar 2018, at 12:37,  
>  wrote:
> 
> The expectation for the default values of self_serivce and full_service will 
> probably vary greatly from location to location, so it’s probably best to 
> always explicitly specify both to take the guessing out of it.


I would also suggest to tag both, as full service stations tend to charge more 
(naturally), but not so few stations offer both (also during the day, serviced 
or not according to the pump you choose).

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

Re: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms

[Christian Müller]

> 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 alternatives.

+1, if it is an alternative.  Read: A proposal that addresses the same
needs to the same extent.  Dropping some part of an existing proposal
does seem to create gaps, rather than bridge them, imho.

cmuelle8

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

Re: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms

[Christian Müller]

> 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 because the waiting
> area on the sidewalk often isn't clearly delimited. Furthermore,
> double tagging doesn't work if the sidewalk is called 'X Road' and the
> bus stop 'Y Square'.
> 

If a sidewalk _functions_ as a platform, than you can indeed call that
part of the sidewalk a platform, depending on which role of the area
you are currently talking about.  This is time-dependent:

If lots of people are standing and waiting on that sidewalk for a
vehicle to arrive, it will be easier for you to see why this is (also)
a platform, than e.g. at night time without a PT service serving the
halt.

A thing as simple as a box may be used as a table or chair.  This is
the same thing here.  You have a physical structure that is so simple
that it may function as a platform or a sidewalk, depending on current
use.


Greetings
cmuelle8

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

Re: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms

[Christian Müller]

"wild" platform - the opposite of a built, dedicated platform structure

 

An example for both:

 

wild - a road with a grass strip and a PT post stuck in the ground,

people have to use the grass strip; over time it may have an "upgrade"

using fine gravel to compensate for the dirt revealed by the grass stepped

down

 

dedicated - a platform made of paving_stones or other solid material, may

be equipped with additional street furniture (shelter, tactile paving, bins, etc.)

 

You may find wild platforms (i.e. non-dedicated ones)  in secluded areas

with very low passenger frequency.  Profit-wise such stops are usually

inattractive to a company, so unless they are tax sponsored they often

are a target of consolidation.  An analogy is a wild path, e.g. when people

"shortcut" park meadows - it's a path for usage frequency, not because

it was built for or dedicated to this purpose.

 

 

Tagging wild platforms is addressed by PTv2.  As pointed out previously

platform nodes may be used to indicate these. 

 

 

Greetings

cmuelle8

 



Gesendet: Freitag, 30. März 2018 um 08:56 Uhr
Von: Johnparis 
An: "Tag discussion, strategy and 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 the infrastructure Christian means. (Not clear to me what exactly a "wild" platform is.)





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

Re: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

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.

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

Re: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

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 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 
“raised”

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

Re: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms

[nwastra]

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 little point in adding 
anything to the osm database if it does not render on the standard map.

N

> On 31 Mar 2018, at 12:55 am, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 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@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

Re: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

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” because every way of mapping might be an advantage 
in some setting / for some question, e.g. when there was only highway=bus_stop 
for bus stops, the discussion was whether to put the stop on the highway or on 
the side of it, and AFAIR both were proclaimed equally valid, each with their 
own pros and cons.

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

Re: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

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@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms

[Jo]

I tag the platform as NODE with:

highway=bus_stop
public_transport=platform
bus=yes
name=
ref=
route_ref=
zone=
...

Because nodes have 1 pair of coordinates, so convenient for direct
comparison with external sources and t's easy to draw text around it with
an offset in MapCSS in JOSM,

If there is a platform, I map it as a way or an area:
highway=platform

Only the platform nodes are added to the route relations.

2018-03-30 13:52 GMT+02:00 Selfish Seahorse :

> If I got you right, you map the platform as a
> public_transport=platform way and add a public_transport=platform node
> in addition?
>
> Why not tag that node public_transport=stop then? This would allow for
> a clear distinction between platform and stop.
>
>
> On 30 March 2018 at 11:52, Jo  wrote:
> > When tagging platforms as ways, I wouldn't add details like name to
> them, as
> > the name would already be present on the platform node, which represents
> the
> > stop, both for rendering purposes as for being added to the route
> relations.
> >
> > I would only map a platform as a way, if there is tactile paving, or it's
> > higher than the rest of the sidewalk, or if it's clearly an island
> between
> > main road and cycleway. Before we had the bus_bay=right/left/both, I have
> > been adding platform ways in the shape of the bay. Not sure if that is
> the
> > best practice. As I got used to them, I think they render nicely, but it
> may
> > be exaggerated. They are not mapped for the purpose of adding them to the
> > route relations and there is clearly accommodations for the buses near
> such
> > stops. Most of them look like (narrower) sidewalks though.
> >
> > Jo
> >
> >
> >
> > 2018-03-30 11:06 GMT+02:00 Selfish Seahorse :
> >>
> >> > In this case it is not wrong to tag a fraction of the sidewalk as
> >> > platform, there is dual (multipurpose) use in this case.  There are
> several
> >> > variants, sometimes the paving stones suggest a dedicated area over
> full or
> >> > half of the width, sometimes not.  Since the tags do not conflict
> with the
> >> > highway tags, double tagging with highway=footway
> public_transport=platform
> >> > may be a good way to reflect this ground situation.
> >>
> >> I wouldn't call a sidewalk a platform, especially because the waiting
> >> area on the sidewalk often isn't clearly delimited. Furthermore,
> >> 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: "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, no need
> for
> >> >> a platform.
> >> >
> >> > In this case it is not wrong to tag a fraction of the sidewalk as
> >> > platform,
> >> > there is dual (multipurpose) use in this case.  There are several
> >> > variants,
> >> > sometimes the paving stones suggest a dedicated area over full or half
> >> > of
> >> > the width, sometimes not.  Since the tags do not conflict with the
> >> > highway
> >> > tags, double tagging with highway=footway public_transport=platform
> may
> >> > be
> >> > a good way to reflect this ground situation.
> >> >
> >> > This is also a nice way to see, why and where PT tags perform better
> >> > than
> >> > the legacy tagging - a combination like highway=footway
> highway=platform
> >> > won't do.
> >> >
> >> >> Doesn't b) correspond to how public_transport has been defined? 'If
> >> >> there is no platform in the real world, one can place a node at the
> >> >> pole.'
> >> >
> >> > Yes, it corresponds. I remember seeing kv-pages with the node icon
> >> > crossed out.  Currently this (still?) applies e.g. to
> >> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:railway%3Dplatform
> >> > It may have affected other platform related pages in the past.
> >> >
> >> > So this is yet another example of a problem raised earlier: Legacy
> >> > information lingering in the wiki with sparse reference to the suc-
> >> > cessor for readers to compare.  As long as a 'deprecated' label is
> >> > missing, it seems natural to some extent that there is concurrent
> >> > competition between the older and the newer approach to map PT.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Greetings
> >> > cmuelle8
> >> >
> >> > ___
> >> > Tagging mailing list
> >> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> >> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Tagging mailing list
> >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Tagging 

Re: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms

[Selfish Seahorse]

If I got you right, you map the platform as a
public_transport=platform way and add a public_transport=platform node
in addition?

Why not tag that node public_transport=stop then? This would allow for
a clear distinction between platform and stop.


On 30 March 2018 at 11:52, Jo  wrote:
> When tagging platforms as ways, I wouldn't add details like name to them, as
> the name would already be present on the platform node, which represents the
> stop, both for rendering purposes as for being added to the route relations.
>
> I would only map a platform as a way, if there is tactile paving, or it's
> higher than the rest of the sidewalk, or if it's clearly an island between
> main road and cycleway. Before we had the bus_bay=right/left/both, I have
> been adding platform ways in the shape of the bay. Not sure if that is the
> best practice. As I got used to them, I think they render nicely, but it may
> be exaggerated. They are not mapped for the purpose of adding them to the
> route relations and there is clearly accommodations for the buses near such
> stops. Most of them look like (narrower) sidewalks though.
>
> Jo
>
>
>
> 2018-03-30 11:06 GMT+02:00 Selfish Seahorse :
>>
>> > In this case it is not wrong to tag a fraction of the sidewalk as
>> > platform, there is dual (multipurpose) use in this case.  There are several
>> > variants, sometimes the paving stones suggest a dedicated area over full or
>> > half of the width, sometimes not.  Since the tags do not conflict with the
>> > highway tags, double tagging with highway=footway public_transport=platform
>> > may be a good way to reflect this ground situation.
>>
>> I wouldn't call a sidewalk a platform, especially because the waiting
>> area on the sidewalk often isn't clearly delimited. Furthermore,
>> 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: "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, no need for
>> >> a platform.
>> >
>> > In this case it is not wrong to tag a fraction of the sidewalk as
>> > platform,
>> > there is dual (multipurpose) use in this case.  There are several
>> > variants,
>> > sometimes the paving stones suggest a dedicated area over full or half
>> > of
>> > the width, sometimes not.  Since the tags do not conflict with the
>> > highway
>> > tags, double tagging with highway=footway public_transport=platform may
>> > be
>> > a good way to reflect this ground situation.
>> >
>> > This is also a nice way to see, why and where PT tags perform better
>> > than
>> > the legacy tagging - a combination like highway=footway highway=platform
>> > won't do.
>> >
>> >> Doesn't b) correspond to how public_transport has been defined? 'If
>> >> there is no platform in the real world, one can place a node at the
>> >> pole.'
>> >
>> > Yes, it corresponds. I remember seeing kv-pages with the node icon
>> > crossed out.  Currently this (still?) applies e.g. to
>> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:railway%3Dplatform
>> > It may have affected other platform related pages in the past.
>> >
>> > So this is yet another example of a problem raised earlier: Legacy
>> > information lingering in the wiki with sparse reference to the suc-
>> > cessor for readers to compare.  As long as a 'deprecated' label is
>> > missing, it seems natural to some extent that there is concurrent
>> > competition between the older and the newer approach to map PT.
>> >
>> >
>> > Greetings
>> > cmuelle8
>> >
>> > ___
>> > Tagging mailing list
>> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Attendant on amenity=fuel

[osm.tagging]

Based on the information provided here:

 

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dfuel#Service

 

and what was stated in previous posts on the mailing list, I would guess that 
the correct tags would be:

 

Only serviced by attendant:

 

self_service=no

full_service=yes

 

Self service always available, attended only during the day:

 

self_service=yes

full_service=no

full_service:conditional=yes @ 06:00-18:00

 

(following the recommendation in the wiki to specify the default value 
explicitly when it’s not obvious)

 

Self service only available at night when no attendant is present:

 

self_service=yes

full_service:conditional=no @ 06:00-18:00

full_service=no

full_service:conditional=yes @ 06:00-18:00

 

 

The expectation for the default values of self_serivce and full_service will 
probably vary greatly from location to location, so it’s probably best to 
always explicitly specify both to take the guessing out of it.

 

 

From: José G Moya Y.  
Sent: Friday, 30 March 2018 18:53
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Attendant on amenity=fuel

 

I understand you can tag "self_service:no" in case of attended fuel stations?

 

As Javier says, disabled people use to need attended fuel stations. In Spain 
(are you from here, Javier?) some administrative areas (atonomous communities) 
are moving to enforce attended fuel stations. 

 

In other countries, the situation is the one explained before in this thread: 
some pumps are attended, some are not, and prices may be different (I remember 
this happened to me in a travel to Italy, but 13 years have passed from that).

 

 

 

El vie., 30 de marzo de 2018 10:39, Javier Sánchez Portero 
 > escribió:

 

El vie., 30 mar. 2018 8:54,  > escribió:

While it has never been used before, the logical key to me would be 
self_service:conditional following the usual rules for conditional keys.

I agree. It will require only a minor change in the conditional restrictions 
wiki.

 

Javier

___
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] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms

[Jo]

When tagging platforms as ways, I wouldn't add details like name to them,
as the name would already be present on the platform node, which represents
the stop, both for rendering purposes as for being added to the route
relations.

I would only map a platform as a way, if there is tactile paving, or it's
higher than the rest of the sidewalk, or if it's clearly an island between
main road and cycleway. Before we had the bus_bay=right/left/both, I have
been adding platform ways in the shape of the bay. Not sure if that is the
best practice. As I got used to them, I think they render nicely, but it
may be exaggerated. They are not mapped for the purpose of adding them to
the route relations and there is clearly accommodations for the buses near
such stops. Most of them look like (narrower) sidewalks though.

Jo



2018-03-30 11:06 GMT+02:00 Selfish Seahorse :

> > In this case it is not wrong to tag a fraction of the sidewalk as
> platform, there is dual (multipurpose) use in this case.  There are several
> variants, sometimes the paving stones suggest a dedicated area over full or
> half of the width, sometimes not.  Since the tags do not conflict with the
> highway tags, double tagging with highway=footway public_transport=platform
> may be a good way to reflect this ground situation.
>
> I wouldn't call a sidewalk a platform, especially because the waiting
> area on the sidewalk often isn't clearly delimited. Furthermore,
> 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: "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, therefore, no need for
> >> a platform.
> >
> > In this case it is not wrong to tag a fraction of the sidewalk as
> platform,
> > there is dual (multipurpose) use in this case.  There are several
> variants,
> > sometimes the paving stones suggest a dedicated area over full or half of
> > the width, sometimes not.  Since the tags do not conflict with the
> highway
> > tags, double tagging with highway=footway public_transport=platform may
> be
> > a good way to reflect this ground situation.
> >
> > This is also a nice way to see, why and where PT tags perform better than
> > the legacy tagging - a combination like highway=footway highway=platform
> > won't do.
> >
> >> Doesn't b) correspond to how public_transport has been defined? 'If
> >> there is no platform in the real world, one can place a node at the
> >> pole.'
> >
> > Yes, it corresponds. I remember seeing kv-pages with the node icon
> > crossed out.  Currently this (still?) applies e.g. to
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:railway%3Dplatform
> > It may have affected other platform related pages in the past.
> >
> > So this is yet another example of a problem raised earlier: Legacy
> > information lingering in the wiki with sparse reference to the suc-
> > cessor for readers to compare.  As long as a 'deprecated' label is
> > missing, it seems natural to some extent that there is concurrent
> > competition between the older and the newer approach to map PT.
> >
> >
> > Greetings
> > cmuelle8
> >
> > ___
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
> ___
> 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] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms

[Selfish Seahorse]

> And if a tag is needed, stop vs stop_position would surely cause confusion!

If we would map a public_transport=stop node regardless of whether
there's a platform or not and if only public_transport=stop nodes
would be added to route relations then public_transport=stop_position
wouldn't be needed anymore (because for long platform, there is the
information where the vehicle stops) and there would be no confusion.

> 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.

It is a scheme that has been around for seven years but hasn't been
adopted widely, which means that something isn't optimal with it.
Seven years is a very long time!

In my opinion, it's never too late to look for alternatives.


On 30 March 2018 at 08:56, Johnparis  wrote:
> 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 the infrastructure Christian means. (Not
> clear to me what exactly a "wild" platform is.)
>
> And if a tag is needed, stop vs stop_position would surely cause confusion!
>
> 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.
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 8:45 AM, Selfish Seahorse
>  wrote:
>>
>> > If this is a problem, because the tag should ideally discrimnate built
>> > structure features, then either
>> >
>> > a) find a new tag for wild platforms
>>
>> Maybe public_transport=stop?
>>
>>
>> On 29 March 2018 at 16:30, "Christian Müller"  wrote:
>> > Mapping public transport in detail was in part started to aid impaired
>> > people and people with diminished mobility.  The stop_position is an
>> > attempt
>> > to tell for large/long platforms at which subarea of the platform you
>> > can
>> > expect a public service vehicle to have an entrance (regardless of its
>> > length, that may change with time of day or when the schedule of the
>> > company
>> > is overhauled).
>> >
>> > The platform itself will not give you any clues which position to route
>> > a
>> > user to so that him/her readjusting position on that platform is minimal
>> > once the vehicle arrived and is ready for boarding.
>> >
>> > If the platform exists, mapping it is more important than the
>> > stop_position,
>> > but the latter gives additional info _especially_ for lengthy or large
>> > platforms.
>> >
>> > -
>> >
>> > There have been complaints about added pseudo-platforms in the data.
>> > This
>> > situation stems from the fact, that platforms are missing on ground (for
>> > lack of money, political decisions or because the halt is seen as a
>> > temporary one).  _Nevertheless_, public transport users _do_ and _have_
>> > to
>> > use parts of the area around the PT-pole as a platform.  In this case
>> > the
>> > tag is not used to map a built structure, but how the space is
>> > effectively
>> > used 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
>> > 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: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms
>> > 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_transport=stop_position could be abandoned, which
>> >> > would make PTv2 tagging a lot easier and more time-efficient.
>> >
>> >
>> > ___
>> > Tagging mailing list
>> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>> >
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms

[Selfish Seahorse]

> In this case it is not wrong to tag a fraction of the sidewalk as platform, 
> there is dual (multipurpose) use in this case.  There are several variants, 
> sometimes the paving stones suggest a dedicated area over full or half of the 
> width, sometimes not.  Since the tags do not conflict with the highway tags, 
> double tagging with highway=footway public_transport=platform may be a good 
> way to reflect this ground situation.

I wouldn't call a sidewalk a platform, especially because the waiting
area on the sidewalk often isn't clearly delimited. Furthermore,
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: "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, no need for
>> a platform.
>
> In this case it is not wrong to tag a fraction of the sidewalk as platform,
> there is dual (multipurpose) use in this case.  There are several variants,
> sometimes the paving stones suggest a dedicated area over full or half of
> the width, sometimes not.  Since the tags do not conflict with the highway
> tags, double tagging with highway=footway public_transport=platform may be
> a good way to reflect this ground situation.
>
> This is also a nice way to see, why and where PT tags perform better than
> the legacy tagging - a combination like highway=footway highway=platform
> won't do.
>
>> Doesn't b) correspond to how public_transport has been defined? 'If
>> there is no platform in the real world, one can place a node at the
>> pole.'
>
> Yes, it corresponds. I remember seeing kv-pages with the node icon
> crossed out.  Currently this (still?) applies e.g. to
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:railway%3Dplatform
> It may have affected other platform related pages in the past.
>
> So this is yet another example of a problem raised earlier: Legacy
> information lingering in the wiki with sparse reference to the suc-
> cessor for readers to compare.  As long as a 'deprecated' label is
> missing, it seems natural to some extent that there is concurrent
> competition between the older and the newer approach to map PT.
>
>
> Greetings
> cmuelle8
>
> ___
> 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] Attendant on amenity=fuel

[José G Moya Y .]

I understand you can tag "self_service:no" in case of attended fuel
stations?

As Javier says, disabled people use to need attended fuel stations. In
Spain (are you from here, Javier?) some administrative areas (atonomous
communities) are moving to enforce attended fuel stations.

In other countries, the situation is the one explained before in this
thread: some pumps are attended, some are not, and prices may be different
(I remember this happened to me in a travel to Italy, but 13 years have
passed from that).



El vie., 30 de marzo de 2018 10:39, Javier Sánchez Portero <
javiers...@gmail.com> escribió:

>
>
> El vie., 30 mar. 2018 8:54,  escribió:
>
>> While it has never been used before, the logical key to me would be
>> self_service:conditional following the usual rules for conditional keys.
>>
> I agree. It will require only a minor change in the conditional
> restrictions wiki.
>
> Javier
>
>> ___
> 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] Attendant on amenity=fuel

[Philip Barnes]

On 30 March 2018 08:50:07 BST, "Javier Sánchez Portero"  
wrote:
>El vie., 30 mar. 2018 8:a


>I think this is important for disabled drivers to have to go down the
>car
>to fill or not.
>
Not really, at self service filling stations the cashier will fill the car for 
disabled drivers. 

Phil (trigpoint) 

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

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

Re: [Tagging] Attendant on amenity=fuel

[Javier Sánchez Portero]

El vie., 30 mar. 2018 8:54,  escribió:

> While it has never been used before, the logical key to me would be
> self_service:conditional following the usual rules for conditional keys.
>
I agree. It will require only a minor change in the conditional
restrictions wiki.

Javier

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

Re: [Tagging] Attendant on amenity=fuel

[osm.tagging]

While it has never been used before, the logical key to me would be 
self_service:conditional following the usual rules for conditional keys.

 

 

At least you can choose during the day if you fuel by your self or not. So I 
would treat it as not self service during the day.

 

I consider this a interesting fact to map. Has any one a sugestion on how to?

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

Re: [Tagging] Attendant on amenity=fuel

[Javier Sánchez Portero]

El vie., 30 mar. 2018 8:13, Stephan Knauss 
escribió:

> Hello Dave,
>
> As this is a thing country specific, people typically expect the norm. So
> no need to tag this explicitly.
>
> Question is how to tag it.
>
> self_service sounds like the right key to tag exceptions from the norm. It
> can also be used with the same meaning for example for car wash. These come
> as well as stations where you insert coins in a machine to get pressurized
> water or with staff doing the car wash for you, eg while you are shopping
> in the supermarket.
>
> Stephan
>
>
> On March 30, 2018 12:08:44 PM GMT+07:00, Dave Swarthout <
> daveswarth...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> In the U.S. almost all service stations are unattended these days. The
>> pumps are automated and accept only credit cards. Persons needing to pay
>> cash have to go to a separate office or shop to pay. Oregon used to be the
>> only state I visit regularly in which customers were not allowed to fuel
>> their vehicles. Attendants did everything; filled the tank, cleaned the
>> windshield, checked the oil. IIRC, that law just recently changed.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 7:44 AM, Stephan Knauss 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> It is the norm that you have an attendant coming and filling up the tank
>>> for you.
>>>
>>> Some places will always clean the windscreen while waiting for the
>>> refill, but don't this is something to tag special as you can always ask
>>> the attendant to clean them.
>>>
>>> In some countries it differs, so I suggest to tag things not following
>>> the norm of the country.
>>>
>>> Stephan
>>>
>>>
>>> On March 29, 2018 5:58:51 PM GMT+07:00, "Javier Sánchez Portero" <
>>> javiers...@gmail.com> wrote:

 Sorry, english is not my first languange and I'm not sure of have been
 used the correct word in the subject. I'm looking for a key to denote if
 you have to refuel by your self or not. I meant if the station operates on
 self service mode.

 Didn't found nothing in the wiki or taginfo.

 I'm confused also about the use of Key:tenant. The description in the
 wiki is to short for a non native English speaker. Could any one give me
 further details?

 Thank you, Javier.

>>>
>>> ___
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dave Swarthout
>> Homer, Alaska
>> Chiang Mai, Thailand
>> Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
>>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/taggin
> g


In some countries the norm is to fill the tank by self service, in other
with attendants, but in many you can find both classes of stations so there
aren't a default value there.

I think this is important for disabled drivers to have to go down the car
to fill or not.

Javier

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

Re: [Tagging] Attendant on amenity=fuel

[Stephan Knauss]

Hello Dave,

As this is a thing country specific, people typically expect the norm. So no 
need to tag this explicitly.

Question is how to tag it.

self_service sounds like the right key to tag exceptions from the norm. It can 
also be used with the same meaning for example for car wash. These come as well 
as stations where you insert coins in a machine to get pressurized water or 
with staff doing the car wash for you, eg while you are shopping in the 
supermarket.

Stephan


On March 30, 2018 12:08:44 PM GMT+07:00, Dave Swarthout 
 wrote:
>In the U.S. almost all service stations are unattended these days. The
>pumps are automated and accept only credit cards. Persons needing to
>pay
>cash have to go to a separate office or shop to pay. Oregon used to be
>the
>only state I visit regularly in which customers were not allowed to
>fuel
>their vehicles. Attendants did everything; filled the tank, cleaned the
>windshield, checked the oil. IIRC, that law just recently changed.
>
>Dave
>
>On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 7:44 AM, Stephan Knauss
>
>wrote:
>
>> It is the norm that you have an attendant coming and filling up the
>tank
>> for you.
>>
>> Some places will always clean the windscreen while waiting for the
>refill,
>> but don't this is something to tag special as you can always ask the
>> attendant to clean them.
>>
>> In some countries it differs, so I suggest to tag things not
>following the
>> norm of the country.
>>
>> Stephan
>>
>>
>> On March 29, 2018 5:58:51 PM GMT+07:00, "Javier Sánchez Portero" <
>> javiers...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Sorry, english is not my first languange and I'm not sure of have
>been
>>> used the correct word in the subject. I'm looking for a key to
>denote if
>>> you have to refuel by your self or not. I meant if the station
>operates on
>>> self service mode.
>>>
>>> Didn't found nothing in the wiki or taginfo.
>>>
>>> I'm confused also about the use of Key:tenant. The description in
>the
>>> wiki is to short for a non native English speaker. Could any one
>give me
>>> further details?
>>>
>>> Thank you, Javier.
>>>
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>>
>
>
>-- 
>Dave Swarthout
>Homer, Alaska
>Chiang Mai, Thailand
>Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms

[Johnparis]

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, 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 put on the stop
> position node, not on the platform node. [^1] This problem could be
> solved if we agree to put them on platform node instead.
>
> [^1]:  Public_Transport#Stop>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms

[Selfish Seahorse]

> If this is a problem, because the tag should ideally discrimnate built 
> structure features, then either
>
> a) find a new tag for wild platforms

Maybe public_transport=stop?


On 29 March 2018 at 16:30, "Christian Müller"  wrote:
> Mapping public transport in detail was in part started to aid impaired
> people and people with diminished mobility.  The stop_position is an attempt
> to tell for large/long platforms at which subarea of the platform you can
> expect a public service vehicle to have an entrance (regardless of its
> length, that may change with time of day or when the schedule of the company
> is overhauled).
>
> The platform itself will not give you any clues which position to route a
> user to so that him/her readjusting position on that platform is minimal
> once the vehicle arrived and is ready for boarding.
>
> If the platform exists, mapping it is more important than the stop_position,
> but the latter gives additional info _especially_ for lengthy or large
> platforms.
>
> -
>
> There have been complaints about added pseudo-platforms in the data.  This
> situation stems from the fact, that platforms are missing on ground (for
> lack of money, political decisions or because the halt is seen as a
> temporary one).  _Nevertheless_, public transport users _do_ and _have_ to
> use parts of the area around the PT-pole as a platform.  In this case the
> tag is not used to map a built structure, but how the space is effectively
> used 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
> 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: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms
> 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_transport=stop_position could be abandoned, which
>> > would make PTv2 tagging a lot easier and more time-efficient.
>
>
> ___
> 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] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms

[Johnparis]

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 price of redundancy.

If the goal is not to break legacy software, then these legacy tags
"should" also be added going forward, no? So it's not just a case of
co-existing like in forever, but also tagging using v1 and v2 like in
forever. Consider Polyglot's point about tagging bus stops with
highway=bus_stop+public_transport=platform+bus=yes, which in fact is what
ID now does automatically. So we can expect this to be the norm.

Since "highway=bus_stop" is wrong when the platform is a way, it's
necessary to have at least one node tagged (either on the way or possibly
inside it if it's an area) with v1 information. Which is exactly what I
have been doing with bus platforms that have been mapped as ways. And only
including the node in the relation(s).

In general I have not been including the stop positions in the relations,
although I have been including stop positions for the terminal points. Upon
reflection and after reading this discussion, I think it's best just to
include the platforms in the relations, with the terminal points being
marked with the appropriate role (platform_exit_only or
platform_entry_only).

On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 11:36 PM, "Christian Müller"  wrote:

> 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 those that do find inconsistent
> tagging guides.  Shaping the wiki to be consistent in what is says
> on all ends is a ressource problem, but this does not invalidate
> the progress made with PTv2 in general.
>
>
> Greetings
> cmuelle8
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging