Re: [Tagging] rail routes: how are platforms and stops associated (rail question 2)

[Jo]

I'm sorry about removing the video. This time the sound was recorded, but
everything remained black. I think I'll start using Hangouts on Air from
now on.

If you only want to draw a map of where the buses travel, maybe version 1
of the PT scheme will do. If you want to know how they actually get from
one stop to the next, it won't. Those version 1 route relations are also
hopeless to do maintenance on. There is no way to check their continuity,
so it's not even possible to flag them as 'broken'. They get mapped once
and from then on, they start degrading.

Now, I won't say that PT v2 is ideal, there is a lot of double work in
them, where buses share the same itineraries. My hope is, that at some
point, we'll use "super"-relations for them composed of route segments.

If you like we can do a hangout where I can demo the current state of the
plugin. It would be good to test it on train routes. It's meant to work on
all kinds of public transport route relations. This year we'll expand the
scope to other route relations, as it doesn't make sense to fix PT and not
get warnings for those routes, when they were modified. Coding on the new
functionality will only start in June, but this is the second year the
plugin is being developed.

Jo

2017-05-13 17:15 GMT+02:00 Tijmen Stam :

> On 12-05-17 23:44, Jo wrote:
>
>> I think what I'm trying to say is: there are many more bus routes (and
>> their variations) than train route relations to be mapped. If we insist
>> that it has to be:
>>
>> stop_position
>> platform
>>
>> so double tagging, I think I'll abandon and I'll understand that most
>> people will never start mapping public transport as it is effectively
>> too complicated.
>>
>
> That would be a shame.
> In my view, I have no problem with mapping stop_positions and platforms,
> even though the old version (with just the highway=bus_stop) seems to work
> fine too.
>
> I'm working on automating it, during a second GSoC of code project now,
>> but that is something that will always remain a burden. Duplication of
>> tagging and the apparent need for adding information about stops twice
>> to the route relations.
>>
>
> Very interested in that project.
>
> So my question remains: why can't we have NODES with all the details
>> next to the road. These nodes in the route relations and have the
>> stop_position, the platform way, the shelter, the waste_basket, the
>> bench as extra items that go into a stop_area relation, preferably one
>> per direction of travel ?
>>
>
> I have no answer to that. But there's no real necessity to convert to
> version 2 except your own drive to do so. IMHO, for most intents and
> purposes, a hybrid works just as well.
>
>
> I just spent another hour and 20 minutes converting 1 line from version
>> 1 to version 2. The 'simple' way. It might have taken me 2 hours or more
>> if everything had needed to be mapped double.
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_R9cQ73YZp8
>>
>
> Video removed?
>
>
> My main demotivator in the public transit mapping is, is that our main
> renderer (mapnik) won't cope with the public_transport version 2 scheme for
> some (seemingly simple) technical reason, i.e. it won't name platforms that
> are not a node tagged with highway=bus_stop.
>
> Tijmen/IIVQ
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] rail routes: how are platforms and stops associated (rail question 2)

[Tijmen Stam]

On 12-05-17 23:44, Jo wrote:

I think what I'm trying to say is: there are many more bus routes (and
their variations) than train route relations to be mapped. If we insist
that it has to be:

stop_position
platform

so double tagging, I think I'll abandon and I'll understand that most
people will never start mapping public transport as it is effectively
too complicated.


That would be a shame.
In my view, I have no problem with mapping stop_positions and platforms, 
even though the old version (with just the highway=bus_stop) seems to 
work fine too.



I'm working on automating it, during a second GSoC of code project now,
but that is something that will always remain a burden. Duplication of
tagging and the apparent need for adding information about stops twice
to the route relations.


Very interested in that project.


So my question remains: why can't we have NODES with all the details
next to the road. These nodes in the route relations and have the
stop_position, the platform way, the shelter, the waste_basket, the
bench as extra items that go into a stop_area relation, preferably one
per direction of travel ?


I have no answer to that. But there's no real necessity to convert to 
version 2 except your own drive to do so. IMHO, for most intents and 
purposes, a hybrid works just as well.




I just spent another hour and 20 minutes converting 1 line from version
1 to version 2. The 'simple' way. It might have taken me 2 hours or more
if everything had needed to be mapped double.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_R9cQ73YZp8


Video removed?


My main demotivator in the public transit mapping is, is that our main 
renderer (mapnik) won't cope with the public_transport version 2 scheme 
for some (seemingly simple) technical reason, i.e. it won't name 
platforms that are not a node tagged with highway=bus_stop.


Tijmen/IIVQ

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

Re: [Tagging] rail routes: how are platforms and stops associated (rail question 2)

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 12. May 2017, at 23:25, Tijmen Stam  wrote:
> 
> On some buses however, the GPS reader is over the driver, while at others, 
> it's at the rear end. Something that can make a difference of 25 metres on 
> our long double-bendy buses



you should take this into account when calculating the median ;-)

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

Re: [Tagging] rail routes: how are platforms and stops associated (rail question 2)

[Jo]

I think what I'm trying to say is: there are many more bus routes (and
their variations) than train route relations to be mapped. If we insist
that it has to be:

stop_position
platform

so double tagging, I think I'll abandon and I'll understand that most
people will never start mapping public transport as it is effectively too
complicated.

I'm working on automating it, during a second GSoC of code project now, but
that is something that will always remain a burden. Duplication of tagging
and the apparent need for adding information about stops twice to the route
relations.

So my question remains: why can't we have NODES with all the details next
to the road. These nodes in the route relations and have the stop_position,
the platform way, the shelter, the waste_basket, the bench as extra items
that go into a stop_area relation, preferably one per direction of travel ?

I just spent another hour and 20 minutes converting 1 line from version 1
to version 2. The 'simple' way. It might have taken me 2 hours or more if
everything had needed to be mapped double.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_R9cQ73YZp8

Polyglot



2017-05-12 23:25 GMT+02:00 Tijmen Stam :

> On 12-05-17 20:12, Colin Smale wrote:
>
>> How about a step back for a second here... What is the stop_position
>> intended for? Who is it intended to help or inform? A bit of context
>> would help to rank the possibilities.
>>
>> I remain by my earlier standpoint that a stop_position is too much
>> detail for a route as it is too variable to be useful. Trains on the
>> same route will be longer or shorter, and will use different tracks and
>> different platforms from time to time. What stays constant when
>> considering the route is the station itself, so this would be the right
>> entity to make part of the route.
>>
>
> For railway routes, I see the stop_position as the technical point that
> ties together the track with (railway realm) to the platform (pedestrian
> realm). Not the actual exact point at which a train should stop.
>
> For bus routes it has the added bonus of being the (approximate) position
> of where the bus stops. I say approximate, because in the bus company I
> work at, the bus stop's position in our systems is averaged from the bus'
> GPS readings at the point the doors open. On some buses however, the GPS
> reader is over the driver, while at others, it's at the rear end. Something
> that can make a difference of 25 metres on our long double-bendy buses,
> which is quite a lot, as the "geofence" around a bus stop is by default 30
> metres, so a small misalignment of 5m combined with a different GPS
> position on the bus, with added GPS disturbance in built-up areas, might
> make the bus think it's not at the stop yet, making a difference in price
> for those who use contactless ticketing.
>
> Tijmen/IIVQ
>
>
> ___
> 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] rail routes: how are platforms and stops associated (rail question 2)

[Tijmen Stam]

On 12-05-17 20:12, Colin Smale wrote:

How about a step back for a second here... What is the stop_position
intended for? Who is it intended to help or inform? A bit of context
would help to rank the possibilities.

I remain by my earlier standpoint that a stop_position is too much
detail for a route as it is too variable to be useful. Trains on the
same route will be longer or shorter, and will use different tracks and
different platforms from time to time. What stays constant when
considering the route is the station itself, so this would be the right
entity to make part of the route.


For railway routes, I see the stop_position as the technical point that 
ties together the track with (railway realm) to the platform (pedestrian 
realm). Not the actual exact point at which a train should stop.


For bus routes it has the added bonus of being the (approximate) 
position of where the bus stops. I say approximate, because in the bus 
company I work at, the bus stop's position in our systems is averaged 
from the bus' GPS readings at the point the doors open. On some buses 
however, the GPS reader is over the driver, while at others, it's at the 
rear end. Something that can make a difference of 25 metres on our long 
double-bendy buses, which is quite a lot, as the "geofence" around a bus 
stop is by default 30 metres, so a small misalignment of 5m combined 
with a different GPS position on the bus, with added GPS disturbance in 
built-up areas, might make the bus think it's not at the stop yet, 
making a difference in price for those who use contactless ticketing.


Tijmen/IIVQ

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

Re: [Tagging] rail routes: how are platforms and stops associated (rail question 2)

[Tijmen Stam]

On 12-05-17 00:06, Bjoern Hassler wrote:

Hi Tijmen,

many thanks. Yes, I understand the wiki that way too, i.e. suggest one
stop_area for the station and associated infrastructure.

Follow up question: In the relation you have
 .../stop/platform/stop/platform/stop/platform/... - would you agree
with the convention that the stop comes first, then the platform? It's
of course arbitrary, but e.g  in JOSM, the stop name would then come
first, followed by the platform (possibly unnamed), so it possibly makes
more sense than the other way round.


I didn't know that was a convention, but it is one I use too.

My convention of order for a route_relation:

stop_position 1
platform 1
stop_position 2
platform 2
:
stop_position N
platform N
way 1
way 2
way 3

For the stop_area, I try to keep a similar convention, but I see it as 
having no logical necessary, just to keep things neat:


public_transport/railway=station (if applicable)
stop_position 1
platform 1
:
stop_position N
platform N
[things without role, like shelters/bench/...]


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

Re: [Tagging] rail routes: how are platforms and stops associated (rail question 2)

[Jo]

My preference is to make the platform part of the route. A node tagged

public_transport=platform
railway=stop /highway=bus_stop (so they render on carto)
name=
ref=


This works particularly well for bus, tram, metro. It doesn't work all too
well for trains, as they often arrive at different platforms, depending on
the situation at the particular moment.

I like to consider the passenger perspective. I map the
public_transport=stop_position node on the highway or railway from the
perspective of the 'driver'. Those nodes don't need too much extra detail
though. What I basically use them for is to split the way on them for the
first and terminal stops of a line.

Would it be conceivable to come to a simplified way of mapping the route
relations (at least for buses, trams and metro) to only include those
public_transport=platform nodes?

I am converting many route relations from "public_transport:version=1" to
"public_transport:version=2". And it's a hassle, but still feasible.

The point where I'll throw in the towel is if every stop needs to be in
those route relations twice.

Some people add the stop_position nodes to the route relations and platform
ways. Often duplicating all the details on both those stop_position nodes
and the platform ways. From the passenger's perspective the stop_position
nodes are not where they are waiting. Still those are the primitives that
have coordinates that can easily be compared to data from the operators.

Having a node for the 'platform' (the pole with the flag on it in
actuality) or at least the place where people gather to wait with all the
details exactly once, solves many problems and makes checking and creating
the route relations feasible.

Or maybe we need to define yet another public_transport=pole/waiting_area
mappable only as a node for this purpose and include that in the route
relations? When I asked a few  years ago, I was told to use
public_transport=platform for this purpose and this works well, as long as
it is mapped as a node.

I'll be doing a workshop on public transport in Avignon the first Sunday of
June.

Polyglot

2017-05-12 20:12 GMT+02:00 Colin Smale :

> How about a step back for a second here... What is the stop_position
> intended for? Who is it intended to help or inform? A bit of context would
> help to rank the possibilities.
>
> I remain by my earlier standpoint that a stop_position is too much detail
> for a route as it is too variable to be useful. Trains on the same route
> will be longer or shorter, and will use different tracks and different
> platforms from time to time. What stays constant when considering the route
> is the station itself, so this would be the right entity to make part of
> the route.
>
> --colin
>
>
>
> On 2017-05-12 17:45, Bjoern Hassler wrote:
>
> Hi Michael,
>
> that's very helpful, thanks. I'll implement the ref as well as the
> ordering. I'll also add this to the English wiki pages where needed. I'll
> have a look at the DE page as well.
>
> Examples for nodes as requested. Stop_position at:
> - End of platform (middle of line) node 13328915
> - End of platform (end of line) node 20955753
> - Middle of platform node 1620401529
>
> (Disclaimer: I was just adding tags for 13328915, but I'll fix this
> shortly to be in the center of the platform. IMHO that is the convention
> that does make sense from a passengers perspective, but yes, it doesn't
> address Colin's comments about physical stop train positions from the
> drivers perspective.)
>
> Many thanks,
> Bjoern
>
>
> On 12 May 2017 at 15:48, Michael Reichert  wrote:
>
>> Hi Bjoern,
>>
>> Am 2017-05-10 um 18:59 schrieb Bjoern Hassler:
>> > In an  osm:relation:route
>> >  (type=route,
>> > route=train/...), you have both platforms and stop positions. How is a
>> > particular platform associated with a stop that serves it?
>> >
>> > E.g. for public transport routing, you'd walk (highway=footway) to a
>> > platform (public_transport=platform), at which point you'd change to a
>> > train stopping at a stop (public_transport=stop_position). How would
>> the
>> > routing algorithm know that the platform is associated with the stop?
>> >
>> > Is there an existing mechanism or convention, e.g. a tag on the platform
>> > that indicates the stop, or both tagged with the same name or similar?
>>
>> Stop positions can have a tag ref=* or local_ref=* giving the track
>> number which is signed on the platform. The platform has ref=*, too. The
>> ref tag of the platform often contains multiple numbers because many
>> platforms have to edges, i.e. ref=2;3 or even worse: ref=2a;2b;2;3a;3b;3
>> (if the track can be occupied by two trains behind each other at the
>> same time – very common at busy stations).
>>
>> If you don't want to parse ref=*/local_ref=* and route relations are
>> properly mapped, you can check which route relations reference a
>> platform. If a route relation 

Re: [Tagging] rail routes: how are platforms and stops associated (rail question 2)

[Colin Smale]

How about a step back for a second here... What is the stop_position
intended for? Who is it intended to help or inform? A bit of context
would help to rank the possibilities. 

I remain by my earlier standpoint that a stop_position is too much
detail for a route as it is too variable to be useful. Trains on the
same route will be longer or shorter, and will use different tracks and
different platforms from time to time. What stays constant when
considering the route is the station itself, so this would be the right
entity to make part of the route. 

--colin

On 2017-05-12 17:45, Bjoern Hassler wrote:

> Hi Michael, 
> 
> that's very helpful, thanks. I'll implement the ref as well as the ordering. 
> I'll also add this to the English wiki pages where needed. I'll have a look 
> at the DE page as well. 
> 
> Examples for nodes as requested. Stop_position at: - End of platform (middle 
> of line) node 13328915
> - End of platform (end of line) node 20955753 
> - Middle of platform node 1620401529 
> 
> (Disclaimer: I was just adding tags for 13328915, but I'll fix this shortly 
> to be in the center of the platform. IMHO that is the convention that does 
> make sense from a passengers perspective, but yes, it doesn't address Colin's 
> comments about physical stop train positions from the drivers perspective.) 
> 
> Many thanks, 
> Bjoern 
> 
> On 12 May 2017 at 15:48, Michael Reichert  wrote:
> 
>> Hi Bjoern,
>> 
>> Am 2017-05-10 um 18:59 schrieb Bjoern Hassler:
>>> In an  osm:relation:route
>>>  (type=route,
>>> route=train/...), you have both platforms and stop positions. How is a
>>> particular platform associated with a stop that serves it?
>>> 
>>> E.g. for public transport routing, you'd walk (highway=footway) to a
>>> platform (public_transport=platform), at which point you'd change to a
>>> train stopping at a stop (public_transport=stop_position). How would the
>>> routing algorithm know that the platform is associated with the stop?
>>> 
>>> Is there an existing mechanism or convention, e.g. a tag on the platform
>>> that indicates the stop, or both tagged with the same name or similar?
>> 
>> Stop positions can have a tag ref=* or local_ref=* giving the track
>> number which is signed on the platform. The platform has ref=*, too. The
>> ref tag of the platform often contains multiple numbers because many
>> platforms have to edges, i.e. ref=2;3 or even worse: ref=2a;2b;2;3a;3b;3
>> (if the track can be occupied by two trains behind each other at the
>> same time - very common at busy stations).
>> 
>> If you don't want to parse ref=*/local_ref=* and route relations are
>> properly mapped, you can check which route relations reference a
>> platform. If a route relation contains both platforms and stop
>> positions, the next member of a relation after a stop position node is
>> should be the platform.
>> 
>> I think that both variants provide better results than simple snapping
>> on the next edge in your pedestrian routing graph (if platforms are in
>> your routing graph). There are cases in reality where a railway track
>> has platforms on both sides but you can or must leave the train only to
>> one direction.
>> 
>>> PS I've noticed that sometimes the stop position is at the far end of a
>>> platform (i.e. the two stop positions are at opposite ends of the station).
>>> Maybe that's so that an association can be made?
>> 
>> From my point of view this is wrong mapping. (In Germany mainly done by
>> user rayquaza) To give a correct answer, you should give some examples
>> (node IDs).
>> 
>> Best regards
>> 
>> Michael
>> 
>> --
>> Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt. (Mailinglisten
>> ausgenommen)
>> I prefer GPG encryption of emails. (does not apply on mailing lists)
>> 
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging [2]
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
 

Links:
--
[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/relation:route
[2] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] rail routes: how are platforms and stops associated (rail question 2)

[Bjoern Hassler]

Hi Michael,

that's very helpful, thanks. I'll implement the ref as well as the
ordering. I'll also add this to the English wiki pages where needed. I'll
have a look at the DE page as well.

Examples for nodes as requested. Stop_position at:
- End of platform (middle of line) node 13328915
- End of platform (end of line) node 20955753
- Middle of platform node 1620401529

(Disclaimer: I was just adding tags for 13328915, but I'll fix this shortly
to be in the center of the platform. IMHO that is the convention that does
make sense from a passengers perspective, but yes, it doesn't address
Colin's comments about physical stop train positions from the drivers
perspective.)

Many thanks,
Bjoern


On 12 May 2017 at 15:48, Michael Reichert  wrote:

> Hi Bjoern,
>
> Am 2017-05-10 um 18:59 schrieb Bjoern Hassler:
> > In an  osm:relation:route
> >  (type=route,
> > route=train/...), you have both platforms and stop positions. How is a
> > particular platform associated with a stop that serves it?
> >
> > E.g. for public transport routing, you'd walk (highway=footway) to a
> > platform (public_transport=platform), at which point you'd change to a
> > train stopping at a stop (public_transport=stop_position). How would the
> > routing algorithm know that the platform is associated with the stop?
> >
> > Is there an existing mechanism or convention, e.g. a tag on the platform
> > that indicates the stop, or both tagged with the same name or similar?
>
> Stop positions can have a tag ref=* or local_ref=* giving the track
> number which is signed on the platform. The platform has ref=*, too. The
> ref tag of the platform often contains multiple numbers because many
> platforms have to edges, i.e. ref=2;3 or even worse: ref=2a;2b;2;3a;3b;3
> (if the track can be occupied by two trains behind each other at the
> same time – very common at busy stations).
>
> If you don't want to parse ref=*/local_ref=* and route relations are
> properly mapped, you can check which route relations reference a
> platform. If a route relation contains both platforms and stop
> positions, the next member of a relation after a stop position node is
> should be the platform.
>
> I think that both variants provide better results than simple snapping
> on the next edge in your pedestrian routing graph (if platforms are in
> your routing graph). There are cases in reality where a railway track
> has platforms on both sides but you can or must leave the train only to
> one direction.
>
> > PS I've noticed that sometimes the stop position is at the far end of a
> > platform (i.e. the two stop positions are at opposite ends of the
> station).
> > Maybe that's so that an association can be made?
>
> From my point of view this is wrong mapping. (In Germany mainly done by
> user rayquaza) To give a correct answer, you should give some examples
> (node IDs).
>
> Best regards
>
> Michael
>
> --
> Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt. (Mailinglisten
> ausgenommen)
> I prefer GPG encryption of emails. (does not apply on mailing lists)
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] rail routes: how are platforms and stops associated (rail question 2)

[Michael Reichert]

Hi Bjoern,

Am 2017-05-11 um 11:17 schrieb Bjoern Hassler:
> in the case of 4a/4b etc I would put in different stop points. If 4a always
> serves one route, then 4a would be added to the route relation. Maybe if 4a
> / 5a / 6a can all serve the same route, then I don't know what the solution
> is Maybe you just add a new stop point somewhere, and add a note? Or
> put 4a/5a/6a into a relation, and add the relation? (That would be against
> the spec at the moment I think... but could be a solution.)

If some trains of a line serve platform 4, some 5 and some 6, only map
the variant which is served most frequent on a working day or over a
week. In some countries the platform where a train stops is announced
only a few minutes before its arrival (e.g. in France and Czech Republic).

> Colin: Actually, in the case you mentioned (short/long trains), I guess
> there could also be several stop points. I think that's not a problem. It's
> just you would only add one of those to the route relation. For the several
> stop points, ideally there would be a note, saying "front of train, 4
> carriages" or "front of train, 8 carriages", or maybe an additional tag of
> some kind.

Just map the location of the center of the shortest train which serves
this route. This will lead passengers always to the location on the
platform where they most probably can enter a train.

> To come back to the original question: If an association between a stop
> point and platform exists (as it does on the underground), is there a way
> of indicating this through tagging? What are your views?
> 
> There are a few possibilities, e.g. both the stop point and the platform
> could share the same name (kinda fragile though). They could be ordered in
> the relation so that the stopping_position comes first, followed by the
> platform (this would be a new feature, but e.g. a tag could be added to the
> route relation where this ordering has taken place). Also, the roles in the
> route are stop/platform, but also suggest stop:n / platform:n. It's not to
> order them, and it doesn't look like this is to associate stop/platform,
> but it could be used.

Valid PTv2 route relations are ordered, i.e. the platform which follows
a stop position and is near the stop position always belongs to the stop
position.

Best regards

Michael

-- 
Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt. (Mailinglisten
ausgenommen)
I prefer GPG encryption of emails. (does not apply on mailing lists)



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] rail routes: how are platforms and stops associated (rail question 2)

[Michael Reichert]

Hi Bjoern,

Am 2017-05-11 um 12:08 schrieb Bjoern Hassler:
> Basically, I'm trying to understand
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route#Members. There's the
> concept of station vs. stop_position, in case there are many stop_positions
> in a station / stop_area. Sorry for London examples, but I'm trying to get
> to grips with TFL. So e.g. King's Cross is a station/stop_area, but with
> multiple stop_positions (for underground, busses, main line, etc).

The wiki page Relation:route is an overview over all types of route
(hiking, cycling, ferries, trains, …). In addition, the public transport
part seems outdated. If you were able to read German, I would suggest
you to read DE:Public_Transport which describes the current status of
public transport mapping (its English counterpart is outdated, too).

> In 'Members', there a node with role "stop"/"stop:n", described as follows
> "A bus stop or train halt, on the route. The order of the members in the
> relation should be identical to the order in the timetable. The number is
> not needed to preserve the order of stops. It is only a guide to help
> mappers finding missing or misplaced stops. You can use stop instead, if
> you like."

"stop:n" is totally outdated and was necessary at times when relations
were not ordered list (AFAIK OSM API v0.5).

The proposal page
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Public_Transport
is AFAIK the best English documentation.

Best regards

Michael


-- 
Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt. (Mailinglisten
ausgenommen)
I prefer GPG encryption of emails. (does not apply on mailing lists)



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] rail routes: how are platforms and stops associated (rail question 2)

[Michael Reichert]

Hi Bjoern,

Am 2017-05-10 um 18:59 schrieb Bjoern Hassler:
> In an  osm:relation:route
>  (type=route,
> route=train/...), you have both platforms and stop positions. How is a
> particular platform associated with a stop that serves it?
> 
> E.g. for public transport routing, you'd walk (highway=footway) to a
> platform (public_transport=platform), at which point you'd change to a
> train stopping at a stop (public_transport=stop_position). How would the
> routing algorithm know that the platform is associated with the stop?
> 
> Is there an existing mechanism or convention, e.g. a tag on the platform
> that indicates the stop, or both tagged with the same name or similar?

Stop positions can have a tag ref=* or local_ref=* giving the track
number which is signed on the platform. The platform has ref=*, too. The
ref tag of the platform often contains multiple numbers because many
platforms have to edges, i.e. ref=2;3 or even worse: ref=2a;2b;2;3a;3b;3
(if the track can be occupied by two trains behind each other at the
same time – very common at busy stations).

If you don't want to parse ref=*/local_ref=* and route relations are
properly mapped, you can check which route relations reference a
platform. If a route relation contains both platforms and stop
positions, the next member of a relation after a stop position node is
should be the platform.

I think that both variants provide better results than simple snapping
on the next edge in your pedestrian routing graph (if platforms are in
your routing graph). There are cases in reality where a railway track
has platforms on both sides but you can or must leave the train only to
one direction.

> PS I've noticed that sometimes the stop position is at the far end of a
> platform (i.e. the two stop positions are at opposite ends of the station).
> Maybe that's so that an association can be made?

From my point of view this is wrong mapping. (In Germany mainly done by
user rayquaza) To give a correct answer, you should give some examples
(node IDs).

Best regards

Michael

-- 
Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt. (Mailinglisten
ausgenommen)
I prefer GPG encryption of emails. (does not apply on mailing lists)




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] rail routes: how are platforms and stops associated (rail question 2)

[Warin]

On 12-May-17 07:45 AM, Tijmen Stam wrote:

On 10-05-17 18:59, Bjoern Hassler wrote:

Hello again,

In an  osm:relation:route
 (type=route,
route=train/...), you have both platforms and stop positions. How is a
particular platform associated with a stop that serves it?

E.g. for public transport routing, you'd walk (highway=footway) to a
platform (public_transport=platform), at which point you'd change to a
train stopping at a stop (public_transport=stop_position). How would the
routing algorithm know that the platform is associated with the stop?

Is there an existing mechanism or convention, e.g. a tag on the platform
that indicates the stop, or both tagged with the same name or similar?

Thanks!
Bjoern

PS I've noticed that sometimes the stop position is at the far end of a
platform (i.e. the two stop positions are at opposite ends of the
station). Maybe that's so that an association can be made?


Answering your grand question:

As I interpret the wiki, it is the route-relation that ties together 
the stop_position with the platform, by including them as a pair per 
"halt".


Imagine the "renderer" is a transit simulator that simulates a journey 
from your home to somewhere via "Green line" that stops on track 1 
(platform A), then the route relation of the green line contains both 
the stop_position (a node on track 1) and the platform (platform A).
It would then plot a walking route to platform A, then transfers you 
into the train (on track 1) and along the route.


I know of people who use a stop_area-relation for each 
stop_position/platform pair, which then could be used to tie 
stop_position and platform together, but that is not how I interpret 
the wiki.

I use one stop_area for a whole station.


Here there are different length trains - they usually stop at different 
positions on the platform so the middle of the train is at the middle of 
the platform. And there are short platforms where a full length train is 
too long for the platform - so people wanting to get off must be either 
in the front carriages, the middle carriages or the rear carriages in 
order to get off. (Why the different options? So that the train 
passengers don't all congregate in one portion of the train - different 
platforms have different positions for the train stop) Of course shorter 
length trains can stop with their carriages fully engaged with the 
platform.
I take the stop position from the train divers point of view - as that 
is what would be designated to be of practical use.


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

Re: [Tagging] rail routes: how are platforms and stops associated (rail question 2)

[Bjoern Hassler]

Hi Tijmen,

many thanks. Yes, I understand the wiki that way too, i.e. suggest one
stop_area for the station and associated infrastructure.

Follow up question: In the relation you have
 .../stop/platform/stop/platform/stop/platform/... - would you agree with
the convention that the stop comes first, then the platform? It's of course
arbitrary, but e.g  in JOSM, the stop name would then come first, followed
by the platform (possibly unnamed), so it possibly makes more sense than
the other way round.

Bjoern

On 11 May 2017 at 22:45, Tijmen Stam  wrote:

> On 10-05-17 18:59, Bjoern Hassler wrote:
>
>> Hello again,
>>
>> In an  osm:relation:route
>>  (type=route,
>> route=train/...), you have both platforms and stop positions. How is a
>> particular platform associated with a stop that serves it?
>>
>> E.g. for public transport routing, you'd walk (highway=footway) to a
>> platform (public_transport=platform), at which point you'd change to a
>> train stopping at a stop (public_transport=stop_position). How would the
>> routing algorithm know that the platform is associated with the stop?
>>
>> Is there an existing mechanism or convention, e.g. a tag on the platform
>> that indicates the stop, or both tagged with the same name or similar?
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Bjoern
>>
>> PS I've noticed that sometimes the stop position is at the far end of a
>> platform (i.e. the two stop positions are at opposite ends of the
>> station). Maybe that's so that an association can be made?
>>
>
> Answering your grand question:
>
> As I interpret the wiki, it is the route-relation that ties together the
> stop_position with the platform, by including them as a pair per "halt".
>
> Imagine the "renderer" is a transit simulator that simulates a journey
> from your home to somewhere via "Green line" that stops on track 1
> (platform A), then the route relation of the green line contains both the
> stop_position (a node on track 1) and the platform (platform A).
> It would then plot a walking route to platform A, then transfers you into
> the train (on track 1) and along the route.
>
> I know of people who use a stop_area-relation for each
> stop_position/platform pair, which then could be used to tie stop_position
> and platform together, but that is not how I interpret the wiki.
> I use one stop_area for a whole station.
>
> Tijmen/IIVQ
>
>
> ___
> 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] rail routes: how are platforms and stops associated (rail question 2)

[Tijmen Stam]

On 10-05-17 18:59, Bjoern Hassler wrote:

Hello again,

In an  osm:relation:route
 (type=route,
route=train/...), you have both platforms and stop positions. How is a
particular platform associated with a stop that serves it?

E.g. for public transport routing, you'd walk (highway=footway) to a
platform (public_transport=platform), at which point you'd change to a
train stopping at a stop (public_transport=stop_position). How would the
routing algorithm know that the platform is associated with the stop?

Is there an existing mechanism or convention, e.g. a tag on the platform
that indicates the stop, or both tagged with the same name or similar?

Thanks!
Bjoern

PS I've noticed that sometimes the stop position is at the far end of a
platform (i.e. the two stop positions are at opposite ends of the
station). Maybe that's so that an association can be made?


Answering your grand question:

As I interpret the wiki, it is the route-relation that ties together the 
stop_position with the platform, by including them as a pair per "halt".


Imagine the "renderer" is a transit simulator that simulates a journey 
from your home to somewhere via "Green line" that stops on track 1 
(platform A), then the route relation of the green line contains both 
the stop_position (a node on track 1) and the platform (platform A).
It would then plot a walking route to platform A, then transfers you 
into the train (on track 1) and along the route.


I know of people who use a stop_area-relation for each 
stop_position/platform pair, which then could be used to tie 
stop_position and platform together, but that is not how I interpret the 
wiki.

I use one stop_area for a whole station.

Tijmen/IIVQ

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

Re: [Tagging] rail routes: how are platforms and stops associated (rail question 2)

[Philip Barnes]

On Thursday, 11 May 2017, Bjoern Hassler wrote:
> HI Phil, hi Colin,
> 
> in the case of 4a/4b etc I would put in different stop points. If 4a always
> serves one route, then 4a would be added to the route relation. Maybe if 4a
> / 5a / 6a can all serve the same route, then I don't know what the solution
> is Maybe you just add a new stop point somewhere, and add a note? Or
> put 4a/5a/6a into a relation, and add the relation? (That would be against
> the spec at the moment I think... but could be a solution.)
> 
The problem is that the real world is not as simple as the London Underground, 
the big big issue is to define the routes. Really not easy as a route is a 
combination of start, destination and stations served. Something even a geek 
like me finds bewildering if I was to try to map rail routes.

Your average passenger just knows where a train is going, or at least where 
they are going.

Trains are regularly split/merged/reversed on routes. A train to a destination 
can be on one of many routes, some may only operate weekly despite appearing to 
most as a regular service. 

Phil (trigpoint)
-- 
Sent from my Jolla
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] rail routes: how are platforms and stops associated (rail question 2)

[Bjoern Hassler]

Hi Colin,

Colin: Actually, in the case you mentioned (short/long trains), I guess
> there could also be several stop points. I think that's not a problem. It's
> just you would only add one of those to the route relation. For the several
> stop points, ideally there would be a note, saying "front of train, 4
> carriages" or "front of train, 8 carriages", or maybe an additional tag of
> some kind.
>
>
>
> So which one would you choose to add to the route?
>

One of them? There doesn't seem to be guidance on this, and
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route#Members is vague. I
would have normally just added one stop position, and added that to the
relation. (Most London Underground stations I've looked at only have one
stop_position anyway.)


>
> Fundamentally I think the definition of a "route" is the list of places
> where a stop is made. A rail route links stations. If the 0900 train uses
> platform 1 and the 0930 uses platform 2 then that is not a sufficient
> distinction to say they are on different routes. So the detail of stop
> position is definitely going too far for the definition of a route.
>

Basically, I'm trying to understand
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route#Members. There's the
concept of station vs. stop_position, in case there are many stop_positions
in a station / stop_area. Sorry for London examples, but I'm trying to get
to grips with TFL. So e.g. King's Cross is a station/stop_area, but with
multiple stop_positions (for underground, busses, main line, etc).

In 'Members', there a node with role "stop"/"stop:n", described as follows
"A bus stop or train halt, on the route. The order of the members in the
relation should be identical to the order in the timetable. The number is
not needed to preserve the order of stops. It is only a guide to help
mappers finding missing or misplaced stops. You can use stop instead, if
you like."

My interpretation is that "bus stop or train halt" refers to a station or
otherwise to railway=stop/public_transport=stop_position. So it's possible
to add a station. The page suggests node, but I guess whatever is tagged as
station could be added there when there is no unique stop_position (e.g.
for mainline stations).

There is also a role for platform, so there is definitely scope for adding
platforms, but yes, that may not be possible.


>
> Veering a little off-topic, we have a bit of a challenge in the tagging of
> multiple tracks. There is no way at present to group multiple tracks into a
> single entity. If there is a quad track from A to B and they are mapped as
> individual tracks of equal status, then they all have to part of the route
> from A to B (assuming they are truly equivalent). It would be better from a
> data modelling perspective to have the *route* use a single line ("logical
> track") between the stations.
>

I think what's in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route#Members,
role "route", doesn't conflict with this. You could add all tracks 1,2,3,4
into the route relationship (with empty role or role=route). I think they
would not be separate route relations. My interpretation of the spec would
be that you have a route relation with
 1
 2
 3
 5
stop A
stop B

and one with
 1
 2
 3
 5
stop B
stop A

Both relations would be combined into a route_master relationship.

Let me know if you see it differently.
Bjoern



> --colin
>
>
> ___
> 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] rail routes: how are platforms and stops associated (rail question 2)

[Colin Smale]

Hi Bjoern, 

On 2017-05-11 11:17, Bjoern Hassler wrote:

> HI Phil, hi Colin, 
> 
> Colin: Actually, in the case you mentioned (short/long trains), I guess there 
> could also be several stop points. I think that's not a problem. It's just 
> you would only add one of those to the route relation. For the several stop 
> points, ideally there would be a note, saying "front of train, 4 carriages" 
> or "front of train, 8 carriages", or maybe an additional tag of some kind.

So which one would you choose to add to the route? 

Fundamentally I think the definition of a "route" is the list of places
where a stop is made. A rail route links stations. If the 0900 train
uses platform 1 and the 0930 uses platform 2 then that is not a
sufficient distinction to say they are on different routes. So the
detail of stop position is definitely going too far for the definition
of a route. 

Veering a little off-topic, we have a bit of a challenge in the tagging
of multiple tracks. There is no way at present to group multiple tracks
into a single entity. If there is a quad track from A to B and they are
mapped as individual tracks of equal status, then they all have to part
of the route from A to B (assuming they are truly equivalent). It would
be better from a data modelling perspective to have the *route* use a
single line ("logical track") between the stations. 

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

Re: [Tagging] rail routes: how are platforms and stops associated (rail question 2)

[Bjoern Hassler]

HI Phil, hi Colin,

in the case of 4a/4b etc I would put in different stop points. If 4a always
serves one route, then 4a would be added to the route relation. Maybe if 4a
/ 5a / 6a can all serve the same route, then I don't know what the solution
is Maybe you just add a new stop point somewhere, and add a note? Or
put 4a/5a/6a into a relation, and add the relation? (That would be against
the spec at the moment I think... but could be a solution.)

Colin: Actually, in the case you mentioned (short/long trains), I guess
there could also be several stop points. I think that's not a problem. It's
just you would only add one of those to the route relation. For the several
stop points, ideally there would be a note, saying "front of train, 4
carriages" or "front of train, 8 carriages", or maybe an additional tag of
some kind.

To come back to the original question: If an association between a stop
point and platform exists (as it does on the underground), is there a way
of indicating this through tagging? What are your views?

There are a few possibilities, e.g. both the stop point and the platform
could share the same name (kinda fragile though). They could be ordered in
the relation so that the stopping_position comes first, followed by the
platform (this would be a new feature, but e.g. a tag could be added to the
route relation where this ordering has taken place). Also, the roles in the
route are stop/platform, but also suggest stop:n / platform:n. It's not to
order them, and it doesn't look like this is to associate stop/platform,
but it could be used.

What do you think?

Bjoern

On 10 May 2017 at 18:57, Philip Barnes  wrote:

> On Wed, 2017-05-10 at 18:42 +0100, Bjoern Hassler wrote:
>
> But yes - what do you do if a rain route goes through a station, where the
> rails temporarily split into several tracks? Where is the stop position for
> that route? Clearly in that case stop_positions on the route cannot be
> associated with platforms in the station, and full routing is not possible.
>
>
> However, I would say that each platform should still have a stop_position
> (on the rails) - even though those stop_positions might not be in route
> relations...
>
> And different stop positions for each direction? In larger stations
> platforms serve trains in different directions. And not forgetting
> platforms can be split, Shrewsbury uses 4a/4b/7a/7b and its quite possible
> to have trains in 4a/4b at the same time that will leave in different
> directions. That is having arrived as a single train into platform 4
>
> Phil (trigpoint)
>
>
> ___
> 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] rail routes: how are platforms and stops associated (rail question 2)

[Philip Barnes]

On Wed, 2017-05-10 at 18:42 +0100, Bjoern Hassler wrote:
> > But yes - what do you do if a rain route goes through a station,
> > where the rails temporarily split into several tracks? Where is the
> > stop position for that route? Clearly in that case stop_positions
> > on the route cannot be associated with platforms in the station,
> > and full routing is not possible.
> 
> However, I would say that each platform should still have a
> stop_position (on the rails) - even though those stop_positions might
> not be in route relations...
> 
And different stop positions for each direction? In larger stations
platforms serve trains in different directions. And not forgetting
platforms can be split, Shrewsbury uses 4a/4b/7a/7b and its quite
possible to have trains in 4a/4b at the same time that will leave in
different directions. That is having arrived as a single train into
platform 4

Phil (trigpoint)

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

Re: [Tagging] rail routes: how are platforms and stops associated (rail question 2)

[Bjoern Hassler]

>
> But yes - what do you do if a rain route goes through a station, where the
> rails temporarily split into several tracks? Where is the stop position for
> that route? Clearly in that case stop_positions on the route cannot be
> associated with platforms in the station, and full routing is not possible.
>

However, I would say that each platform should still have a stop_position
(on the rails) - even though those stop_positions might not be in route
relations...

Bjoern


> On 2017-05-10 18:59, Bjoern Hassler wrote:
>>
>> Hello again,
>>
>> In an  osm:relation:route
>>  (type=route,
>> route=train/...), you have both platforms and stop positions. How is a
>> particular platform associated with a stop that serves it?
>>
>> E.g. for public transport routing, you'd walk (highway=footway) to a
>> platform (public_transport=platform), at which point you'd change to a
>> train stopping at a stop (public_transport=stop_position). How would the
>> routing algorithm know that the platform is associated with the stop?
>>
>> Is there an existing mechanism or convention, e.g. a tag on the platform
>> that indicates the stop, or both tagged with the same name or similar?
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Bjoern
>>
>> PS I've noticed that sometimes the stop position is at the far end of a
>> platform (i.e. the two stop positions are at opposite ends of the station).
>> Maybe that's so that an association can be made?
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing 
>> listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://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] rail routes: how are platforms and stops associated (rail question 2)

[Bjoern Hassler]

Hi Phil,

>
> The main issue with stop positions is that they cannot be associated with
> a route, the position will depend on which platform the train is routed
> through and the length of the train. The best OSM can do is route to the
> station and then its look at, or wait for, the information boards.
>

Sure I agree. Though somehow the route needs to have a (logical) stop
position, node (as stop): "The order of the members in the relation should
be identical to the order in the timetable." Do you agree?

But yes - what do you do if a rain route goes through a station, where the
rails temporarily split into several tracks? Where is the stop position for
that route? Clearly in that case stop_positions on the route cannot be
associated with platforms in the station, and full routing is not possible.

While it's not possible in general, for some stations (e.g. tube stations),
clearly stop_positions could be associated with platforms.

Bjoern


>
>
>
>
> On 2017-05-10 18:59, Bjoern Hassler wrote:
>
> Hello again,
>
> In an  osm:relation:route
>  (type=route,
> route=train/...), you have both platforms and stop positions. How is a
> particular platform associated with a stop that serves it?
>
> E.g. for public transport routing, you'd walk (highway=footway) to a
> platform (public_transport=platform), at which point you'd change to a
> train stopping at a stop (public_transport=stop_position). How would the
> routing algorithm know that the platform is associated with the stop?
>
> Is there an existing mechanism or convention, e.g. a tag on the platform
> that indicates the stop, or both tagged with the same name or similar?
>
> Thanks!
> Bjoern
>
> PS I've noticed that sometimes the stop position is at the far end of a
> platform (i.e. the two stop positions are at opposite ends of the station).
> Maybe that's so that an association can be made?
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing 
> listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://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] rail routes: how are platforms and stops associated (rail question 2)

[Philip Barnes]

On Wed, 2017-05-10 at 19:15 +0200, Colin Smale wrote:
> Just to add a dimension... At many stations in NL and UK at least,
> trains of different lengths stop at different places along the
> platform, roughly so the middle of the train is by the exit. So this
> will need multiple stop positions on each platform. These are signed
> for the train driver.
> 
>  
Or the exit is at the back of the train in the case of my local
station, but I'm just being pedantic there.
The main issue with stop positions is that they cannot be associated
with a route, the position will depend on which platform the train is
routed through and the length of the train. The best OSM can do is
route to the station and then its look at, or wait for, the information
boards.
Phil (trigpoint)

> 
> On 2017-05-10 18:59, Bjoern Hassler wrote:
> 
> > Hello again,
> >  
> > In an  osm:relation:route (type=route, route=train/...), you have
> > both platforms and stop positions. How is a particular platform
> > associated with a stop that serves it?
> >  
> > E.g. for public transport routing, you'd walk (highway=footway) to
> > a platform (public_transport=platform), at which point you'd change
> > to a train stopping at a stop (public_transport=stop_position). How
> > would the routing algorithm know that the platform is associated
> > with the stop? 
> >  
> > Is there an existing mechanism or convention, e.g. a tag on the
> > platform that indicates the stop, or both tagged with the same name
> > or similar?
> >  
> > Thanks!
> > Bjoern
> >  
> > PS I've noticed that sometimes the stop position is at the far end
> > of a platform (i.e. the two stop positions are at opposite ends of
> > the station). Maybe that's so that an association can be made?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ___
> >  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] rail routes: how are platforms and stops associated (rail question 2)

[Bjoern Hassler]

Hi Colin,

Ah - that may also explain why sometimes the stop is marked at the end of
the platform.

Having said this, I interpret the notes on the wiki for railway=stop /
public_transport=stop_position to be the "logical stop".
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route#Members says on node (as
stop): "The order of the members in the relation should be identical to the
order in the timetable." Of course it doesn't say the "number of members"
should be identical, but that was my assumptions, and I would have normally
marked these centrally somewhere.

So perhaps for these physical stop positions a different tag is needed?

Bjoern



On 10 May 2017 at 18:15, Colin Smale  wrote:

> Just to add a dimension... At many stations in NL and UK at least, trains
> of different lengths stop at different places along the platform, roughly
> so the middle of the train is by the exit. So this will need multiple stop
> positions on each platform. These are signed for the train driver.
>
>
>
> On 2017-05-10 18:59, Bjoern Hassler wrote:
>
> Hello again,
>
> In an  osm:relation:route
>  (type=route,
> route=train/...), you have both platforms and stop positions. How is a
> particular platform associated with a stop that serves it?
>
> E.g. for public transport routing, you'd walk (highway=footway) to a
> platform (public_transport=platform), at which point you'd change to a
> train stopping at a stop (public_transport=stop_position). How would the
> routing algorithm know that the platform is associated with the stop?
>
> Is there an existing mechanism or convention, e.g. a tag on the platform
> that indicates the stop, or both tagged with the same name or similar?
>
> Thanks!
> Bjoern
>
> PS I've noticed that sometimes the stop position is at the far end of a
> platform (i.e. the two stop positions are at opposite ends of the station).
> Maybe that's so that an association can be made?
>
> ___
> 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] rail routes: how are platforms and stops associated (rail question 2)

[Colin Smale]

Just to add a dimension... At many stations in NL and UK at least,
trains of different lengths stop at different places along the platform,
roughly so the middle of the train is by the exit. So this will need
multiple stop positions on each platform. These are signed for the train
driver.

On 2017-05-10 18:59, Bjoern Hassler wrote:

> Hello again, 
> 
> In an  osm:relation:route [1] (type=route, route=train/...), you have both 
> platforms and stop positions. How is a particular platform associated with a 
> stop that serves it? 
> 
> E.g. for public transport routing, you'd walk (highway=footway) to a platform 
> (public_transport=platform), at which point you'd change to a train stopping 
> at a stop (public_transport=stop_position). How would the routing algorithm 
> know that the platform is associated with the stop?  
> 
> Is there an existing mechanism or convention, e.g. a tag on the platform that 
> indicates the stop, or both tagged with the same name or similar? 
> 
> Thanks! 
> Bjoern 
> 
> PS I've noticed that sometimes the stop position is at the far end of a 
> platform (i.e. the two stop positions are at opposite ends of the station). 
> Maybe that's so that an association can be made? 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
 

Links:
--
[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/relation:route___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] rail routes: how are platforms and stops associated (rail question 2)

[Bjoern Hassler]

Hello again,

In an  osm:relation:route
 (type=route,
route=train/...), you have both platforms and stop positions. How is a
particular platform associated with a stop that serves it?

E.g. for public transport routing, you'd walk (highway=footway) to a
platform (public_transport=platform), at which point you'd change to a
train stopping at a stop (public_transport=stop_position). How would the
routing algorithm know that the platform is associated with the stop?

Is there an existing mechanism or convention, e.g. a tag on the platform
that indicates the stop, or both tagged with the same name or similar?

Thanks!
Bjoern

PS I've noticed that sometimes the stop position is at the far end of a
platform (i.e. the two stop positions are at opposite ends of the station).
Maybe that's so that an association can be made?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging