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

One should keep in mind some mappers don't care mapping public_transport in all its subtleties, however they can simply want to map a __ | | platform by the side of a road when they spot one, and | | bus_stop also. Yves Le 9 avril 2018 23:59:21 GMT+02:00, Michael Reichert

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

Hi, Am 31.03.2018 um 17:00 schrieb Johnparis: > This implies the following changes to v2: > > 1) every platform node should have mandatory {mode}=yes tag(s) I also think that public_transport=platform without *=yes tags is some kind of incomplete. > 2) stop_positions should be optional on the

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

On Sun, Apr 8, 2018 at 7:24 AM, ael wrote: > No. Railway platform for the raised area to match the floor level of > trains is entirely standard. Platform normally means a raised structure > so it applies to the entry floor of a bus, but not to the ground level > waiting

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

On Sun, 2018-04-08 at 18:17 +0100, Steve Doerr wrote: > On 08/04/2018 13:45, Paul Allen wrote: > > A bus stop is a bus stop.  Unless > > it's at a bus station, in which case it's a stance. > > I've never heard it called a stance, and the Oxford English > Dictionary  > shows that this use of the

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

On Sun, 2018-04-08 at 19:01 +0200, Jo wrote: > > > 2018-04-08 17:37 GMT+02:00 Philip Barnes : > > > > > > That is referring to the stops (or stands) within the bus station. > > The > > overall area is Gorsaf Bws, same as as Railway Station (Gorsaf > > Reilffordd) and

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

On 08/04/2018 13:45, Paul Allen wrote: A bus stop is a bus stop.  Unless it's at a bus station, in which case it's a stance. I've never heard it called a stance, and the Oxford English Dictionary shows that this use of the word is Scottish. -- Steve --- This email has been checked for

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

2018-04-08 17:37 GMT+02:00 Philip Barnes : > On Sun, 2018-04-08 at 15:52 +0100, Paul Allen wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 8, 2018 at 2:57 PM, Philip Barnes > > wrote: > > > Almost, Safle Bws is a bus stop. A bus station is Gorsaf Bws :) > > > > > > Phil

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

On Sun, 2018-04-08 at 15:52 +0100, Paul Allen wrote: > On Sun, Apr 8, 2018 at 2:57 PM, Philip Barnes > wrote: > > Almost, Safle Bws is a bus stop. A bus station is Gorsaf Bws :) > > > > Phil (trigpoint) > > Let me look at my local bus station (well, what passes for one). >

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

On Sun, Apr 8, 2018 at 2:57 PM, Philip Barnes wrote: > > Almost, Safle Bws is a bus stop. A bus station is Gorsaf Bws :) > > Phil (trigpoint) > Let me look at my local bus station (well, what passes for one). Stands A, B, C, D and E. Stand A consists of 4 bus shelters

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

On Sun, Apr 08, 2018 at 01:45:31PM +0100, Paul Allen wrote: > On Sun, Apr 8, 2018 at 12:49 PM, ael wrote: > > > > > In the context of buses, it tends to refer to the part of the vehicle > > where people may stand to alight or board. > > > > In my part of the UK, we

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

On Sun, 2018-04-08 at 13:45 +0100, Paul Allen wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 8, 2018 at 12:49 PM, ael > wrote: > > In the context of buses, it tends to refer to the part of the > > vehicle > > where people may stand to alight or board. > > > > In my part of the UK, we never

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

Same in Ireland, I don't think I ever hear any part of a bus referred to as a platform, possibly because we didn't have those Routemaster buses with open boarding areas. And yes, a bus stop is a bus stop, plain and simple. It is not a platform because there is normally no raised structure. Rail

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

On Sun, Apr 8, 2018 at 12:49 PM, ael wrote: > > In the context of buses, it tends to refer to the part of the vehicle > where people may stand to alight or board. > > In my part of the UK, we never referred to that part of a bus as a platform. The old AEC Routemaster

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

On Sun, Apr 08, 2018 at 12:09:58AM +0200, "Christian Müller" wrote: > > Sent: Sat, 7 Apr 2018 22:51:40 +0100 > > From: ael <law_ence@ntlworld.com> > > To: tagging@openstreetmap.org > > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and

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

On Sun, Apr 08, 2018 at 12:09:58AM +0200, "Christian Müller" wrote: > > Sent: Sat, 7 Apr 2018 22:51:40 +0100 > > From: ael <law_ence@ntlworld.com> > > To: tagging@openstreetmap.org > > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and

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

> Sent: Sat, 7 Apr 2018 22:51:40 +0100 > From: ael <law_ence@ntlworld.com> > To: tagging@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms > > > If I'm not mistaken, the dictionary is referring the platform *on* the > &

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

On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 08:11:27PM +0200, Selfish Seahorse wrote: > On 30 March 2018 at 17:29, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > > 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

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

sent from a phone On 6. Apr 2018, at 11:04, Selfish Seahorse wrote: >> in this case you’ll have a platform object and a sidewalk object that happen >> to be at the same place. > > But that way you say that there are two separate objects, which isn't > true: it's

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

>> 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. But that way you say that there are two separate objects, which isn't

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

s cmuelle8 > Gesendet: Samstag, 31. März 2018 um 09:23 Uhr > Von: "Selfish Seahorse" <selfishseaho...@gmail.com> > An: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" <tagging@openstreetmap.org> > Betreff: Re: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions an

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

es, >>> which is wrong. >>> >>> On 30 March 2018 at 19:41, "Christian Müller" <cmu...@gmx.de> wrote: >>> >> Gesendet: Freitag, 30. März 2018 um 11:06 Uhr >>> >> Von: "Selfish Seahorse" <selfishseaho...@gmail.com>

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

here are two physical structures, >> which is wrong. >> >> On 30 March 2018 at 19:41, "Christian Müller" <cmu...@gmx.de> wrote: >> >> Gesendet: Freitag, 30. März 2018 um 11:06 Uhr >> >> Von: "Selfish Seahorse" <selfishs

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

rm). Otherwise, we say that there are two physical structures, >> which is wrong. >> >> On 30 March 2018 at 19:41, "Christian Müller" <cmu...@gmx.de> wrote: >> >> Gesendet: Freitag, 30. März 2018 um 11:06 Uhr >> >> Von: "Selfish Seahorse

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

; An: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" < > tagging@openstreetmap.org> > >> Betreff: Re: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms > >> > >> I wouldn't call a sidewalk a platform, especially because the waiting > >> area

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

>> An: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" <tagging@openstreetmap.org> >> 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

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

> Gesendet: Freitag, 30. März 2018 um 11:29 Uhr > Von: "Selfish Seahorse" <selfishseaho...@gmail.com> > An: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" <tagging@openstreetmap.org> > Betreff: Re: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms &g

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

> Gesendet: Freitag, 30. März 2018 um 11:06 Uhr > Von: "Selfish Seahorse" <selfishseaho...@gmail.com> > An: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" <tagging@openstreetmap.org> > Betreff: Re: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platfor

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

ag discussion, strategy and related tools" <tagging@openstreetmap.org> 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=ye

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

learly 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" <cmu...@gmx.de> wrote: > >> >> Sent:

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

gt;> >> On 29 March 2018 at 23:17, "Christian Müller" <cmu...@gmx.de> wrote: >> >> Sent: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 19:55:34 +0200 >> >> From: "Selfish Seahorse" <selfishseaho...@gmail.com> >> >> To: "Tag d

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

Seahorse" <selfishseaho...@gmail.com> > >> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" < > tagging@openstreetmap.org> > >> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms > >> > >> Or, very often,

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

t; > 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

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

; >> 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. > &

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

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,

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

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 <winfi...@gmail.com> > An: "Tag discussion, strategy and rela

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

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

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

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

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

W dniu 29.03.2018 o 09:43, Johnparis pisze: > I have spent some time reading   > https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/435 > and > https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/331 Great! I will try to do it too, but thanks for the summary anyway. > It seems

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

ew 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 <winfi...@

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

> Sent: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 22:20:21 +0200 > From: "Michael Reichert" <osm...@michreichert.de> > To: tagging@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms > > - If someone writes such a complicated proposal, he should ask

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

be an solution.     Greetings cmuelle8   Gesendet: Donnerstag, 29. März 2018 um 13:36 Uhr Von: Jo <winfi...@gmail.com> An: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" <tagging@openstreetmap.org> Betreff: Re: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms That's what I wo

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

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

> Otherwise, public_transport=stop_position could be abandoned, which would > make PTv2 tagging a lot easier and more time-efficient. Or at least exclude them from route relations. On 29 March 2018 at 12:33, Selfish Seahorse wrote: >> It seems that one major issue

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

> 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

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

and with the whole > conclusion. > > Yours, > > LeTopographeFou > > Message original > De: i...@zverev.info > Envoyé: 28 mars 2018 3:54 PM > À: tagging@openstreetmap.org > Répondre à: tagging@openstreetmap.org > Objet: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop st

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

I have spent some time reading https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/435 and https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/331 It seems that one major issue was that, given a simple public_transport=platform situation, which icon should be used to render it? In

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

PM À: tagging@openstreetmap.org Répondre à: tagging@openstreetmap.org Objet: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms Hi folks, A while ago I've made a proposal to deprecate some public_transport=* tags: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features

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

erved by a bus or a tram, because it isn't tagged with > >> > bus/tram/...=yes. > >> > > >> > I'm wondering why the limitations of PTv1 [^1] haven't been solved by > >> > keeping PTv1 tags, introducing route variant/master relations and &g

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

v1 tags, introducing route variant/master relations and >> > mapping tram stops at the waiting area. >> > >> > [^1]: >> > <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Public_Transport#Main_problem_with_the_existing_schema> >> > >> > >

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

nstreetmap.org> Datum: 28. 3. 2018 18:43:15 Předmět: Re: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms Yes. I like it as well. But it still could be improved. E.g. I'm thinking about tool which - If you create four objects: two nodes on highway and two nodes/ways beside highway a

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

W dniu 28.03.2018 o 18:42, Jo pisze: > I've tried to accomplish that many years ago already, it failed. The > people at the helm of the rendering stack consider the 'old' tags good > enough and the new scheme somehow not explicit enough, hence the > double tagging. I'm not sure who do you mean,

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

t; > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Public_Transport#Main_problem_with_the_existing_schema > > > > > > > > On 28 March 2018 at 16:21, "Christian Müller" <cmu...@gmx.de> wrote: > >>> Sent: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 16:53:28 +0300 &

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

#Main_problem_with_the_existing_schema> > > > On 28 March 2018 at 16:21, "Christian Müller" <cmu...@gmx.de> wrote: >>> Sent: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 16:53:28 +0300 >>> From: "Ilya Zverev" <i...@zverev.info> >>> To: tagging@openstreetmap

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

ema> On 28 March 2018 at 16:21, "Christian Müller" <cmu...@gmx.de> wrote: >> Sent: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 16:53:28 +0300 >> From: "Ilya Zverev" <i...@zverev.info> >> To: tagging@openstreetmap.org >> Subject: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positio

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

My view, as a person adding things to the data base. The public transport v2 documentation that I found is not good. I had difficulty in deciding what to do and used an iterative approach with the OA tools OSMinspector and JOSM validator to come up with something that might work. I'm yet to do

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

Hi Christian, Am 28.03.2018 um 16:21 schrieb "Christian Müller": > In your proposal you complain about subjectively felt things like "history > won't go away", but at the same time you are trying to revert a part of > history itself - "the public_transport tags are seven years old now". Many

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

> > Yes. I like it as well. But it still could be improved. E.g. I'm thinking > about tool which - If you create four objects: two nodes on highway and two > nodes/ways beside highway and select all of them - will automatically tag > them as stop_position and platform and will create corresponding

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

-- Původní e-mail -- Od: Jo <winfi...@gmail.com> Komu: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools <tagging@openstreetmap.org> Datum: 28. 3. 2018 18:43:15 Předmět: Re: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms " I've tried to accomplish that many

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

ller" <cmu...@gmx.de> > Komu: tagging@openstreetmap.org > Datum: 28. 3. 2018 16:22:41 > Předmět: Re: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms > > > Sent: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 16:53:28 +0300 > > From: "Ilya Zverev" <i...@zverev.info> > &g

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

-- Původní e-mail -- Od: "Christian Müller" <cmu...@gmx.de> Komu: tagging@openstreetmap.org Datum: 28. 3. 2018 16:22:41 Předmět: Re: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms "> Sent: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 16:53:28 +0300 > From: &quo

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

glot 2018-03-28 16:21 GMT+02:00 "Christian Müller" <cmu...@gmx.de>: > > Sent: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 16:53:28 +0300 > > From: "Ilya Zverev" <i...@zverev.info> > > To: tagging@openstreetmap.org > > Subject: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions

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

> Sent: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 16:53:28 +0300 > From: "Ilya Zverev" <i...@zverev.info> > To: tagging@openstreetmap.org > Subject: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms > > Hi folks, > > A while ago I've made a proposal to deprecate

[Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms

Hi folks, A while ago I've made a proposal to deprecate some public_transport=* tags: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Drop_stop_positions_and_platforms The discussion was very slow, and in general mappers seemed to accept the change. I'd like to push this to voting in a