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

[Markus]

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

According to the wiki, public_transport=stop_area is used "to identify
all of the features associated with a public transport interchange or
part of one. A stop area for a simple bus stop with buses in both
directions would consist of two waiting areas or shelters [...] and
two stop positions [...]. More complex stop areas may include multiple
platforms and stop positions and many associated elements."

In contrast, the relation i had in mind would only include one
highway=bus_stop and one public_transport=stop_position. The relation
and the public_transport=stop_position node would only be used for the
rare cases where the stop position cannot be calculated by projecting
the highway=bus_stop node to the highway=* way.

Markus

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

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

[Peter Elderson]

typo: references -> Preferences.
Vr gr Peter Elderson


Op wo 21 aug. 2019 om 11:13 schreef Peter Elderson :

> I have now seen PT stop discussions a gazillion times. The references and
> differences reflect the different usages people have in mind, from: I just
> want to map what's visible on the ground, to Support every thinkable way of
> linking, routing, planning and navigating.
>
> Just saying.
> Fr gr Peter Elderson
>
>
> Op wo 21 aug. 2019 om 10:11 schreef marc marc :
>
>> Le 21.08.19 à 09:58, Markus a écrit :
>> > Otherwise, we need a new relation (maybe type=stop_position?) to
>> > connect the stop position to the waiting area
>>
>> imho that's why stop_area relation exist
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Peter Elderson]

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

Just saying.
Fr gr Peter Elderson


Op wo 21 aug. 2019 om 10:11 schreef marc marc :

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

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

[Jo]

Indeed, but I don't think it makes sense to use them for each and every stop

On Wed, Aug 21, 2019, 10:11 marc marc  wrote:

> Le 21.08.19 à 09:58, Markus a écrit :
> > Otherwise, we need a new relation (maybe type=stop_position?) to
> > connect the stop position to the waiting area
>
> imho that's why stop_area relation exist
> ___
> 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] Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

[marc marc]

Le 21.08.19 à 09:58, Markus a écrit :
> Otherwise, we need a new relation (maybe type=stop_position?) to
> connect the stop position to the waiting area

imho that's why stop_area relation exist
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Markus]

On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 at 05:55, Michael Tsang  wrote:
>
> I think there is a need for public_transport=stop_position. Although 99.9% of
> the cases the bus stops directly at the platform, there are some edge cases
> where the bus does not stop at the platform due to practical reasons, i.e. the
> passengers need to board the bus on a service road not next to the platform.
> The platform serves as the waiting area, is also a real platform, and also
> marked by the route.
>
> The example platform is this: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4335709196
> There are routes 8A and 8P, 8A stops directly at the way next to it, while 8P
> is boarded outside that way because that way is parked by 8A buses yet to be
> departed.

Maybe highway=bus_stop could be placed where passengers board the bus?
Otherwise, we need a new relation (maybe type=stop_position?) to
connect the stop position to the waiting area, as the route relations
would only include one element (highway=bus_stop). Keeping the PTv2
route relations with platform and stop members just for these rare
cases doesn't make sense IMO.

Regards
Markus

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

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

[Snusmumriken]

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

Eh? What do you mean nothing renders? Everything that needs to render
already does so, e.g. hw=bus_stop and hw=platform.


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

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

[Janko Mihelić]

Isn't the only thing that matters, for routing at least, the name of the
role that the platform has? I mean, anything can have the role "platform".
Highway=bus_stop can have the role platform.

And nothing renders anyway. So why don't we just start using other
public_transport values, like pole, waiting_area, and whatever we want. We
just start using them, and give them the "platform" role in the relations.
Rendering will come.

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

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

[Tim Magee]

On Sunday, August 4, 2019 2:21:11 PM EDT Jo wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 4, 2019, 16:40 Martin Koppenhoefer 
> 
> wrote:
> > it is just an excuse to insist on using pt=platform for things that aren’t
> > platforms and justify it with saying it means waiting area.
> > I don’t think we should define pt=platform for something different than a
> > public transport platform, it would be asking for trouble.
> > If you want a waiting area tag, name it like this.
> 
> That ship has sailed
> 
> Polyglot

I believe this is the number one reason to move beyond PTv2. There is no way 
to meaningfully fix it because public_transit=platform already means something 
that isn't a public transit platform. 

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Jo]

On Sun, Aug 4, 2019, 16:40 Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
> it is just an excuse to insist on using pt=platform for things that aren’t
> platforms and justify it with saying it means waiting area.
> I don’t think we should define pt=platform for something different than a
> public transport platform, it would be asking for trouble.
> If you want a waiting area tag, name it like this.
>
That ship has sailed

Polyglot

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

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

[Markus]

On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 at 16:40, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
>
> it is just an excuse to insist on using pt=platform for things that aren’t 
> platforms and justify it with saying it means waiting area.

To quote the PTv2 proposal page: "The platform is the place where
passengers are waiting for the vehicles. ... If there is no platform
in the real world, one can place a [node] at the pole [...]." [1]

[1]: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/Public_Transport=625726

Thus the tag says nothing about the existence of a raised structure.

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

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

[Leif Rasmussen]

> If you want a waiting area tag, name it like this.

I *would* agree with this, but public_transport=platform is already quite
established.  Changing tags is worse than having badly named tags.
Leif Rasmussen

On Sun, Aug 4, 2019, 4:40 PM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 4. Aug 2019, at 15:03, Markus  wrote:
> >
> > Unfortunately it doesn't mean a real platform, but a waiting area (see
> > also Polyglot's message). If it would have meant a real platform,
> > there were no PTv2 tag for the waiting area of a stop without
> > platform, which is the normal situation for bus stops at many places.
>
>
> it is just an excuse to insist on using pt=platform for things that aren’t
> platforms and justify it with saying it means waiting area.
> I don’t think we should define pt=platform for something different than a
> public transport platform, it would be asking for trouble.
> If you want a waiting area tag, name it like this.
>
> 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] Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

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


it is just an excuse to insist on using pt=platform for things that aren’t 
platforms and justify it with saying it means waiting area. 
I don’t think we should define pt=platform for something different than a 
public transport platform, it would be asking for trouble.
If you want a waiting area tag, name it like this.

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

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

[Markus]

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

There is a pre-PTv2 tag for this: railway=stop. [1] I'm fine if people
map them, but IMHO they should not be added to the route relations;
they are irrelevant for passenger routing.

[1]: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:railway%3Dstop

> Also you have people saying in this thread for manage in a semiautomatic way 
> the transport lines data is necessary these thow kind of points

It's still unclear to me why the stop positions are required for this.

> Well this is an error. For mi public_transport=platform should be a real 
> platform. It has no sense to have an irreal tag.
> In the stop_position tag you can assure this with platform=yes or platform=no.

Unfortunately it doesn't mean a real platform, but a waiting area (see
also Polyglot's message). If it would have meant a real platform,
there were no PTv2 tag for the waiting area of a stop without
platform, which is the normal situation for bus stops at many places.

Markus

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

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

[Jo]

> highway=platform and/or railway=platform are needed, because
>> public_transport=platform doesn't mean a platform, but a waiting area.
>> And a waiting areas doesn't need to be a platform: some waiting areas
>> are just poles or signs beside the road [1], others are located on the
>> sidewalk [2]. Besides, there are platforms that aren't operated
>> (anymore) and therefore aren't waiting areas, that is
>> public_transport=platform's, anymore.
>>
>
> Well this is an error. For mi public_transport=platform should be a real
> platform. It has no sense to have an irreal tag.
> In the stop_position tag you can assure this with platform=yes or
> platform=no.
>

When the "new" public_transport tag came along, I asked how should I tag
the nodes beside the street that represent the bus stops? Regardless of
whether a platform is present. And the answer was to use
public_transport=platform. So no, this is not an error.

For more than half a decade I have been trying to convince the people
responsible for the rendering of the main map to render nodes with
public_transport=platform + bus=yes like highway=bus_stop.

It became clear by now that this will NEVER happen.

Thus public_transport=platform / bus=yes to replace highway=bus_stop became
unnecessary. I think I'm going to remove those 2 tags everywhere in
Belgium, when I review those 7 bus stops, this time with help of
Mapillary images for the positioning. They became pointless.

But until now, I was using them. I was also using highway=platform to
indicate the real bus platforms and railway=platform for the tram stops.
Either in combination with public_transport=platform, or not. What I was
not doing is duplicating information on these platform ways, or on the
occasional stop_position node I was adding. And they also don't go into the
route relations.

1 object per stop in the route relations should be enough. I'm using the
nodes that represent the bus stops / passenger waiting areas next to the
highways for the purpose of representing the stops along the itineraries.
Works great! And isn't overly complicated or needing a lot of unnecessary
maintenance.

We need the simplest way of doing things that works.

When Uber starts flying, we'll tackle that problem then. No need for a
future proof public_transport scheme for that purpose.

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

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

[yo paseopor]

On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 9:24 PM Markus  wrote:

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

Trains stops in a specific point. Here in Spain they have some sign that
says=Cabeza de tren (Head's line) . It is important because when you do a
map that can be used by the public transport user, but also the
public_transport driver you should have the two positions. OSM data can be
infinite and can be professional. Also you have people saying in this
thread for manage in a semiautomatic way the transport lines data is
necessary these thow kind of points

> In my experience, mapping stop positions and stop areas is only very
> time-consuming (without a benefit), but also makes maintaining the
> routes harder. (Of course, stop areas are helpful at stations,
> especially at subway stations, in order connect the entrances to the
> station.)
>
> > We should deprecate all kind of stuff for public transport who does not
> not have the public transport tag itself. Because a platform has no sense
> if is not for public_transport. No more highway=platform, railway=platform,
> seaway=platform, river=platform.
>
> Apart from the fact that seaway=platform and river=platform don't
> exist,

Sure? Is not there public_transport by sea, by river, by lake? Will be not
ever?
Public transport scheme is a good scheme for present but also for the
future. When you will have Uber flying cabs which scheme will you will have
we invent in a few years? With this proposal only one: flying_cab=yes



> highway=platform and/or railway=platform are needed, because
> public_transport=platform doesn't mean a platform, but a waiting area.
> And a waiting areas doesn't need to be a platform: some waiting areas
> are just poles or signs beside the road [1], others are located on the
> sidewalk [2]. Besides, there are platforms that aren't operated
> (anymore) and therefore aren't waiting areas, that is
> public_transport=platform's, anymore.
>

Well this is an error. For mi public_transport=platform should be a real
platform. It has no sense to have an irreal tag.
In the stop_position tag you can assure this with platform=yes or
platform=no.

>
> [1]: https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/WzQODhqrCxxBLTYj2YJ-8g
> [2]: https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/9HJR2HmtsEPsPVDV682kZQ
>
> Regards
>
> Markus
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Salut i transport públic (health and public transport)
yopaseopor
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Joseph Eisenberg]

Sure, network= and operator= are useful, but the are not required.

Minibus services, the most common public transit in Indonesia, have no
operator here; every vehicle is privately owned and operated.

Joseph

On Sun, Aug 4, 2019 at 6:16 AM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 3. Aug 2019, at 03:19, Joseph Eisenberg 
> wrote:
> >
> > But really all we need is highway=bus_stop + name=* or ref=* - 2 tags,
> > to define a bus stop. And the route relation needs either the stops or
> > the highways added (you could add both, but this isn't really
> > necessary), plus maybe a ref, duration and interval, if known.
>
>
> and a network or operator tag? I find this useful to distinguish bus stops
> by different operators (e.g. regional service from urban transport), even
> if you map just the stop and not yet the route.
>
> Ciao 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] Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

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


and a network or operator tag? I find this useful to distinguish bus stops by 
different operators (e.g. regional service from urban transport), even if you 
map just the stop and not yet the route.

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

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

[Markus]

Hi!

On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 at 20:38, yo paseopor  wrote:
>
> We need a new way of following the scheme. I think all the features are 
> needed: stop positions, platforms and stop area. [...]

Could you please give me an example where stop positions are needed?
In my experience, mapping stop positions and stop areas is only very
time-consuming (without a benefit), but also makes maintaining the
routes harder. (Of course, stop areas are helpful at stations,
especially at subway stations, in order connect the entrances to the
station.)

> We should deprecate all kind of stuff for public transport who does not not 
> have the public transport tag itself. Because a platform has no sense if is 
> not for public_transport. No more highway=platform, railway=platform, 
> seaway=platform, river=platform.

Apart from the fact that seaway=platform and river=platform don't
exist, highway=platform and/or railway=platform are needed, because
public_transport=platform doesn't mean a platform, but a waiting area.
And a waiting areas doesn't need to be a platform: some waiting areas
are just poles or signs beside the road [1], others are located on the
sidewalk [2]. Besides, there are platforms that aren't operated
(anymore) and therefore aren't waiting areas, that is
public_transport=platform's, anymore.

[1]: https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/WzQODhqrCxxBLTYj2YJ-8g
[2]: https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/9HJR2HmtsEPsPVDV682kZQ

Regards

Markus

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

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

[Markus]

Hi Daniel

On Fri, 2 Aug 2019 at 22:21, Daniel Koć  wrote:
>
> Routing software is reliable only if it connects points on the roads. How 
> would you propose to do it without them?

At best, stops (waiting areas) should be connected to the pedestrian
road network, but they don't need to be connected to the road. Even if
sidewalks are tagged on the highway=* way, it is important to know on
which side of the road the bus stops. The stop positions – which only
buses need to know – can then be calculated by projecting the stop to
the road that is part of the same route relation. As i've written in
the recent discussion on talk-transit, OsmAnd's public transportation
routing works very well in Stockholm, where only stops
(highway=bus_stop) beside the road are mapped.

Regards

Markus

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

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

[yo paseopor]

We need a new way of following the scheme. I think all the features are
needed: stop positions, platforms and stop area.Well , at first sight would
seem complicated...but if you want to map a big station you have to use a
complicated system. And this system when you know how it works it is fast
and easy to follow. Because all kind of public transport would be mapped in
the same way. If it is bus? bus=yes. If it is also tram? tram=yes

We should deprecate all kind of stuff for public transport who does not not
have the public transport tag itself. Because a platform has no sense if is
not for public_transport. No more highway=platform, railway=platform,
seaway=platform, river=platform. Forget about the environment: it is a
platform for public transport. And that's it.
Also we should deprecate all the highway=bus_stop (because you have
public_transport=stop_position ), al the halts in a railway, etc...And all
these kind of things would be only public_transport=stop_position.

With this system you can catch an airport and make it a
public_transport=stop_position, for the planes. It is a powerful scheme,
and you only have to know one key and four or five values. You will never
ever misspelled the writing of bus stop? bus_stop? stop_for_bus? for what?
highway?railway?aerialway?seaway?riverway?

We should use scalable and easy of tagging schemes, should we?

Salut i transport public (health and public transport)
yopaseopor

On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 11:53 AM Jo  wrote:

> For a few years now, I've been considering to make a proposal for mapping
> PT in a simpler way. I haven't done it because it's a lot of work and there
> will always be quite a few mappers who prefer the status quo.
>
> Anyway, I think we need 1 object which has all the properties of a stop as
> tags and which is used in the route relations. A single object per stop,
> preferably not 2 for each stop.
>
> That part I've been pushing it slowly all along.
>
> Regarding the itineraries, I think we should also start looking into how
> we can simplify that in such a way that maintenance becomes easier for the
> mappers.
>
> So what if a route relation would consist of an ordered set of stops and a
> link to another relation for the itinerary. This other relation contains
> only relations. Those relations contain the ways for a 'segment' or an
> 'edge'. It's these small relations that get broken occasionally when
> mappers split or combine ways. When this happens only those relations need
> to be fixed and the effect will be that all the itineraries that use them
> are fixed in one go.
>
> There is more 'indirection', which may seem more complex at first sight,
> but we can create tools to visualise the effect of the combined set of
> relations in JOSM and I guess it can be done in iD as well.
>
> As far as maintenance goes, this would simplify matters a lot.
>
> Let me know if you think it makes sense to start a proposal for this. The
> student who works on PT_Assistant this summer is laying the groundwork for
> going into this direction.
>
> Polyglot
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 11:33 AM Joseph Eisenberg <
> joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Re: > The relation needs both stops and ways
>>
>> Sure, it's nice for rendering the have the ways, but it's not always
>> necessary.
>>
>> There are 2 cases where you can only do one or the other
>>
>> 1) Stops only: The buses don't always take the same route between
>> stops, but just take whatever way is fastest. This is common for
>> long-distance buses between towns, and in non-Western countries for
>> all sorts of buses. In this case, just the stops are needed.
>>
>> 2) Ways only: the bus follows the same streets, but will stop
>> anywhere. This is the standard for all minibuses in Indonesia, and in
>> many other countries. In this case there are no bus stops, except at
>> the start and end of the route.
>>
>> It's great to include both when possible, but I think it we should let
>> new mappers know that they can just start with stops or just start
>> with the ways, if that's all they know.
>>
>> On 8/3/19, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On 03/08/19 11:19, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
>> >> Yes, the only thing that needs to be changed is the documentation, in
>> >> my opinion. We don't need more tags, and it's not even necessary to
>> >> officially "deprecate" anything.
>> >>
>> >> Right now some pages suggest that a bus stop needs to be tagged
>> >> highway=bus_stop + public_transport=platform + bus=yes at the location
>> >> passengers wait, and that you also need a
>> >> public_transport=stop_position + bus=yes next to this point (on the
>> >> highway), and a type=public_transport relation with *=stop_area, which
>> >> includes the 2 features, and maybe they all need a name or ref? Oh,
>> >> and you need to make a type=route relation which includes at least one
>> >> of these features, or maybe all of them, in addition to highway ways?
>> >>
>> >> That's 3 features with at least 10 tags, to 

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

[Jo]

For a few years now, I've been considering to make a proposal for mapping
PT in a simpler way. I haven't done it because it's a lot of work and there
will always be quite a few mappers who prefer the status quo.

Anyway, I think we need 1 object which has all the properties of a stop as
tags and which is used in the route relations. A single object per stop,
preferably not 2 for each stop.

That part I've been pushing it slowly all along.

Regarding the itineraries, I think we should also start looking into how we
can simplify that in such a way that maintenance becomes easier for the
mappers.

So what if a route relation would consist of an ordered set of stops and a
link to another relation for the itinerary. This other relation contains
only relations. Those relations contain the ways for a 'segment' or an
'edge'. It's these small relations that get broken occasionally when
mappers split or combine ways. When this happens only those relations need
to be fixed and the effect will be that all the itineraries that use them
are fixed in one go.

There is more 'indirection', which may seem more complex at first sight,
but we can create tools to visualise the effect of the combined set of
relations in JOSM and I guess it can be done in iD as well.

As far as maintenance goes, this would simplify matters a lot.

Let me know if you think it makes sense to start a proposal for this. The
student who works on PT_Assistant this summer is laying the groundwork for
going into this direction.

Polyglot


On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 11:33 AM Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

> Re: > The relation needs both stops and ways
>
> Sure, it's nice for rendering the have the ways, but it's not always
> necessary.
>
> There are 2 cases where you can only do one or the other
>
> 1) Stops only: The buses don't always take the same route between
> stops, but just take whatever way is fastest. This is common for
> long-distance buses between towns, and in non-Western countries for
> all sorts of buses. In this case, just the stops are needed.
>
> 2) Ways only: the bus follows the same streets, but will stop
> anywhere. This is the standard for all minibuses in Indonesia, and in
> many other countries. In this case there are no bus stops, except at
> the start and end of the route.
>
> It's great to include both when possible, but I think it we should let
> new mappers know that they can just start with stops or just start
> with the ways, if that's all they know.
>
> On 8/3/19, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 03/08/19 11:19, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> >> Yes, the only thing that needs to be changed is the documentation, in
> >> my opinion. We don't need more tags, and it's not even necessary to
> >> officially "deprecate" anything.
> >>
> >> Right now some pages suggest that a bus stop needs to be tagged
> >> highway=bus_stop + public_transport=platform + bus=yes at the location
> >> passengers wait, and that you also need a
> >> public_transport=stop_position + bus=yes next to this point (on the
> >> highway), and a type=public_transport relation with *=stop_area, which
> >> includes the 2 features, and maybe they all need a name or ref? Oh,
> >> and you need to make a type=route relation which includes at least one
> >> of these features, or maybe all of them, in addition to highway ways?
> >>
> >> That's 3 features with at least 10 tags, to define a simple bus stop,
> >> before you even make the route relation.
> >>
> >> But really all we need is highway=bus_stop + name=* or ref=* - 2 tags,
> >> to define a bus stop. And the route relation needs either the stops or
> >> the highways added (you could add both, but this isn't really
> >> necessary), plus maybe a ref, duration and interval, if known.
> >
> > The relation needs both stops and ways.
> >
> > Not every stop along a route may be used by service.
> >
> > The simplest way that a router finds between 2 stops may not be the
> service
> > route.
> >
> > The stops don't need a name or ref .. but they could be handy.
> >
> > The route relation does not need an operator, a name etc... but the name
> > would be appreciated, and other tags could be handy too.
> >
> >
> >> More
> >> complex tagging is only helpful at interchange stations - and maybe it
> >> isn't even necessary there, if the routing application is developed
> >> well.
> >>
> >> It would be nice if we could present this situation as the recommended
> >> and sufficient method for mapping bus routes - which are by far the
> >> most common type of fixed-route public transport globally - especially
> >> for new mappers.
> >>
> >> The public_transport=* tags would still exist and still would be
> >> documented clearly on their own wiki pages, but the main features
> >> lists and the page Public Transport could make it clear that these are
> >> optional, not required.
> >>
> >> On 8/3/19, Daniel Koć  wrote:
> >>> W dniu 03.08.2019 o 02:28, Joseph Eisenberg pisze:
>  Consider also how you would route someone from a 

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

[Joseph Eisenberg]

Re: > The relation needs both stops and ways

Sure, it's nice for rendering the have the ways, but it's not always necessary.

There are 2 cases where you can only do one or the other

1) Stops only: The buses don't always take the same route between
stops, but just take whatever way is fastest. This is common for
long-distance buses between towns, and in non-Western countries for
all sorts of buses. In this case, just the stops are needed.

2) Ways only: the bus follows the same streets, but will stop
anywhere. This is the standard for all minibuses in Indonesia, and in
many other countries. In this case there are no bus stops, except at
the start and end of the route.

It's great to include both when possible, but I think it we should let
new mappers know that they can just start with stops or just start
with the ways, if that's all they know.

On 8/3/19, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 03/08/19 11:19, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
>> Yes, the only thing that needs to be changed is the documentation, in
>> my opinion. We don't need more tags, and it's not even necessary to
>> officially "deprecate" anything.
>>
>> Right now some pages suggest that a bus stop needs to be tagged
>> highway=bus_stop + public_transport=platform + bus=yes at the location
>> passengers wait, and that you also need a
>> public_transport=stop_position + bus=yes next to this point (on the
>> highway), and a type=public_transport relation with *=stop_area, which
>> includes the 2 features, and maybe they all need a name or ref? Oh,
>> and you need to make a type=route relation which includes at least one
>> of these features, or maybe all of them, in addition to highway ways?
>>
>> That's 3 features with at least 10 tags, to define a simple bus stop,
>> before you even make the route relation.
>>
>> But really all we need is highway=bus_stop + name=* or ref=* - 2 tags,
>> to define a bus stop. And the route relation needs either the stops or
>> the highways added (you could add both, but this isn't really
>> necessary), plus maybe a ref, duration and interval, if known.
>
> The relation needs both stops and ways.
>
> Not every stop along a route may be used by service.
>
> The simplest way that a router finds between 2 stops may not be the service
> route.
>
> The stops don't need a name or ref .. but they could be handy.
>
> The route relation does not need an operator, a name etc... but the name
> would be appreciated, and other tags could be handy too.
>
>
>> More
>> complex tagging is only helpful at interchange stations - and maybe it
>> isn't even necessary there, if the routing application is developed
>> well.
>>
>> It would be nice if we could present this situation as the recommended
>> and sufficient method for mapping bus routes - which are by far the
>> most common type of fixed-route public transport globally - especially
>> for new mappers.
>>
>> The public_transport=* tags would still exist and still would be
>> documented clearly on their own wiki pages, but the main features
>> lists and the page Public Transport could make it clear that these are
>> optional, not required.
>>
>> On 8/3/19, Daniel Koć  wrote:
>>> W dniu 03.08.2019 o 02:28, Joseph Eisenberg pisze:
 Consider also how you would route someone from a amenity=cafe node in
 a building to a shop=* area in another building across the city, by
 car. You have to jump from the node to the nearest highway, follow the
 highways to the other side of the city, and then jump back to the
 other node. So any router than can handle automobile directions can
 also manage bus stops or tram stops or platforms at the side of the
 road, without needing anything other than highway or railway ways and
 platform or bus stop nodes.
>>> I guess this is the example where this simple analogy fails:
>>>
>>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/334559271
>>>
>>> The route for personal journey might be undefined on the ends (drivers
>>> just use their eyes there), public transport routing is more strict.
>>>
>>>
 I wasn't able to understand enough of the link about updating transit
 features in Warsaw to see how the stop_position nodes were useful. I
 understand that some transit agencies provide data about stop
 positions, and that's the original reason that the stop_position nodes
 were created. There's no problem with keeping them in your city if you
 like them, but probably we shouldn't tell new mappers that they are
 needed, for example in developing cities around the world that
 currently lack any bus stops.
>>> Sorry for asking, but you probably know this documentation quite good -
>>> do we really tell people that every element of a public transport stop
>>> is needed just because it's documented somewhere?
>>>
>>>
 The complexity of the current system, as described on the main pages
 in the wiki, can discourage mapping anything (for example, I've been
 discouraged from trying to add any of the 

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

[Warin]

On 03/08/19 11:19, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:

Yes, the only thing that needs to be changed is the documentation, in
my opinion. We don't need more tags, and it's not even necessary to
officially "deprecate" anything.

Right now some pages suggest that a bus stop needs to be tagged
highway=bus_stop + public_transport=platform + bus=yes at the location
passengers wait, and that you also need a
public_transport=stop_position + bus=yes next to this point (on the
highway), and a type=public_transport relation with *=stop_area, which
includes the 2 features, and maybe they all need a name or ref? Oh,
and you need to make a type=route relation which includes at least one
of these features, or maybe all of them, in addition to highway ways?

That's 3 features with at least 10 tags, to define a simple bus stop,
before you even make the route relation.

But really all we need is highway=bus_stop + name=* or ref=* - 2 tags,
to define a bus stop. And the route relation needs either the stops or
the highways added (you could add both, but this isn't really
necessary), plus maybe a ref, duration and interval, if known.


The relation needs both stops and ways.

Not every stop along a route may be used by service.

The simplest way that a router finds between 2 stops may not be the service 
route.

The stops don't need a name or ref .. but they could be handy.

The route relation does not need an operator, a name etc... but the name would 
be appreciated, and other tags could be handy too.



More
complex tagging is only helpful at interchange stations - and maybe it
isn't even necessary there, if the routing application is developed
well.

It would be nice if we could present this situation as the recommended
and sufficient method for mapping bus routes - which are by far the
most common type of fixed-route public transport globally - especially
for new mappers.

The public_transport=* tags would still exist and still would be
documented clearly on their own wiki pages, but the main features
lists and the page Public Transport could make it clear that these are
optional, not required.

On 8/3/19, Daniel Koć  wrote:

W dniu 03.08.2019 o 02:28, Joseph Eisenberg pisze:

Consider also how you would route someone from a amenity=cafe node in
a building to a shop=* area in another building across the city, by
car. You have to jump from the node to the nearest highway, follow the
highways to the other side of the city, and then jump back to the
other node. So any router than can handle automobile directions can
also manage bus stops or tram stops or platforms at the side of the
road, without needing anything other than highway or railway ways and
platform or bus stop nodes.

I guess this is the example where this simple analogy fails:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/334559271

The route for personal journey might be undefined on the ends (drivers
just use their eyes there), public transport routing is more strict.



I wasn't able to understand enough of the link about updating transit
features in Warsaw to see how the stop_position nodes were useful. I
understand that some transit agencies provide data about stop
positions, and that's the original reason that the stop_position nodes
were created. There's no problem with keeping them in your city if you
like them, but probably we shouldn't tell new mappers that they are
needed, for example in developing cities around the world that
currently lack any bus stops.

Sorry for asking, but you probably know this documentation quite good -
do we really tell people that every element of a public transport stop
is needed just because it's documented somewhere?



The complexity of the current system, as described on the main pages
in the wiki, can discourage mapping anything (for example, I've been
discouraged from trying to add any of the minibus routes in my part of
Indonesia, since it seemed so complicated to make so many features and
routes).

So maybe documentation should be just cleaned? And if I understand you
wrong, could you describe what was your problem there?


--
"Pojechałam truizmem, ale mogę, bo jestem trochę pierdołą" [P. Potocka]





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

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

[Joseph Eisenberg]

Yes, the only thing that needs to be changed is the documentation, in
my opinion. We don't need more tags, and it's not even necessary to
officially "deprecate" anything.

Right now some pages suggest that a bus stop needs to be tagged
highway=bus_stop + public_transport=platform + bus=yes at the location
passengers wait, and that you also need a
public_transport=stop_position + bus=yes next to this point (on the
highway), and a type=public_transport relation with *=stop_area, which
includes the 2 features, and maybe they all need a name or ref? Oh,
and you need to make a type=route relation which includes at least one
of these features, or maybe all of them, in addition to highway ways?

That's 3 features with at least 10 tags, to define a simple bus stop,
before you even make the route relation.

But really all we need is highway=bus_stop + name=* or ref=* - 2 tags,
to define a bus stop. And the route relation needs either the stops or
the highways added (you could add both, but this isn't really
necessary), plus maybe a ref, duration and interval, if known. More
complex tagging is only helpful at interchange stations - and maybe it
isn't even necessary there, if the routing application is developed
well.

It would be nice if we could present this situation as the recommended
and sufficient method for mapping bus routes - which are by far the
most common type of fixed-route public transport globally - especially
for new mappers.

The public_transport=* tags would still exist and still would be
documented clearly on their own wiki pages, but the main features
lists and the page Public Transport could make it clear that these are
optional, not required.

On 8/3/19, Daniel Koć  wrote:
> W dniu 03.08.2019 o 02:28, Joseph Eisenberg pisze:
>> Consider also how you would route someone from a amenity=cafe node in
>> a building to a shop=* area in another building across the city, by
>> car. You have to jump from the node to the nearest highway, follow the
>> highways to the other side of the city, and then jump back to the
>> other node. So any router than can handle automobile directions can
>> also manage bus stops or tram stops or platforms at the side of the
>> road, without needing anything other than highway or railway ways and
>> platform or bus stop nodes.
>
> I guess this is the example where this simple analogy fails:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/334559271
>
> The route for personal journey might be undefined on the ends (drivers
> just use their eyes there), public transport routing is more strict.
>
>
>> I wasn't able to understand enough of the link about updating transit
>> features in Warsaw to see how the stop_position nodes were useful. I
>> understand that some transit agencies provide data about stop
>> positions, and that's the original reason that the stop_position nodes
>> were created. There's no problem with keeping them in your city if you
>> like them, but probably we shouldn't tell new mappers that they are
>> needed, for example in developing cities around the world that
>> currently lack any bus stops.
>
> Sorry for asking, but you probably know this documentation quite good -
> do we really tell people that every element of a public transport stop
> is needed just because it's documented somewhere?
>
>
>> The complexity of the current system, as described on the main pages
>> in the wiki, can discourage mapping anything (for example, I've been
>> discouraged from trying to add any of the minibus routes in my part of
>> Indonesia, since it seemed so complicated to make so many features and
>> routes).
>
> So maybe documentation should be just cleaned? And if I understand you
> wrong, could you describe what was your problem there?
>
>
> --
> "Pojechałam truizmem, ale mogę, bo jestem trochę pierdołą" [P. Potocka]
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

[Warin]

On 03/08/19 11:03, Daniel Koć wrote:

W dniu 03.08.2019 o 02:28, Joseph Eisenberg pisze:

Consider also how you would route someone from a amenity=cafe node in
a building to a shop=* area in another building across the city, by
car. You have to jump from the node to the nearest highway, follow the
highways to the other side of the city, and then jump back to the
other node. So any router than can handle automobile directions can
also manage bus stops or tram stops or platforms at the side of the
road, without needing anything other than highway or railway ways and
platform or bus stop nodes.

I guess this is the example where this simple analogy fails:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/334559271

The route for personal journey might be undefined on the ends (drivers
just use their eyes there), public transport routing is more strict.



I wasn't able to understand enough of the link about updating transit
features in Warsaw to see how the stop_position nodes were useful. I
understand that some transit agencies provide data about stop
positions, and that's the original reason that the stop_position nodes
were created. There's no problem with keeping them in your city if you
like them, but probably we shouldn't tell new mappers that they are
needed, for example in developing cities around the world that
currently lack any bus stops.

Sorry for asking, but you probably know this documentation quite good -
do we really tell people that every element of a public transport stop
is needed just because it's documented somewhere?



The complexity of the current system, as described on the main pages
in the wiki, can discourage mapping anything (for example, I've been
discouraged from trying to add any of the minibus routes in my part of
Indonesia, since it seemed so complicated to make so many features and
routes).

So maybe documentation should be just cleaned? And if I understand you
wrong, could you describe what was your problem there?



I would like to know the simplest, easiest and minimalist way of mapping.
I am not dealing with a complex situation, just the simplest possible.

Consider someone who have little to no mapping experience.
Do the main pages help them or confuse them?

 tl:dr
I think there needs to be a main page that is for beginners.
When they get to something complex they might be able to use the more 
complex main pages.


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

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

[Daniel Koć]

W dniu 03.08.2019 o 02:28, Joseph Eisenberg pisze:
> Consider also how you would route someone from a amenity=cafe node in
> a building to a shop=* area in another building across the city, by
> car. You have to jump from the node to the nearest highway, follow the
> highways to the other side of the city, and then jump back to the
> other node. So any router than can handle automobile directions can
> also manage bus stops or tram stops or platforms at the side of the
> road, without needing anything other than highway or railway ways and
> platform or bus stop nodes.

I guess this is the example where this simple analogy fails:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/334559271

The route for personal journey might be undefined on the ends (drivers
just use their eyes there), public transport routing is more strict.


> I wasn't able to understand enough of the link about updating transit
> features in Warsaw to see how the stop_position nodes were useful. I
> understand that some transit agencies provide data about stop
> positions, and that's the original reason that the stop_position nodes
> were created. There's no problem with keeping them in your city if you
> like them, but probably we shouldn't tell new mappers that they are
> needed, for example in developing cities around the world that
> currently lack any bus stops.

Sorry for asking, but you probably know this documentation quite good -
do we really tell people that every element of a public transport stop
is needed just because it's documented somewhere?


> The complexity of the current system, as described on the main pages
> in the wiki, can discourage mapping anything (for example, I've been
> discouraged from trying to add any of the minibus routes in my part of
> Indonesia, since it seemed so complicated to make so many features and
> routes).

So maybe documentation should be just cleaned? And if I understand you
wrong, could you describe what was your problem there?


-- 
"Pojechałam truizmem, ale mogę, bo jestem trochę pierdołą" [P. Potocka]



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

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

[Warin]

On 03/08/19 10:28, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:

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

Consider also how you would route someone from a amenity=cafe node in
a building to a shop=* area in another building across the city, by
car. You have to jump from the node to the nearest highway, follow the
highways to the other side of the city, and then jump back to the
other node. So any router than can handle automobile directions can
also manage bus stops or tram stops or platforms at the side of the
road, without needing anything other than highway or railway ways and
platform or bus stop nodes.

I wasn't able to understand enough of the link about updating transit
features in Warsaw to see how the stop_position nodes were useful. I
understand that some transit agencies provide data about stop
positions, and that's the original reason that the stop_position nodes
were created. There's no problem with keeping them in your city if you
like them, but probably we shouldn't tell new mappers that they are
needed, for example in developing cities around the world that
currently lack any bus stops.

The complexity of the current system, as described on the main pages
in the wiki, can discourage mapping anything (for example, I've been
discouraged from trying to add any of the minibus routes in my part of
Indonesia, since it seemed so complicated to make so many features and
routes).

Joseph


Your not the only one with that problem.

For my own purposes I came up with 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Warin61/diary/45106




On 8/3/19, Daniel Koć  wrote:

W dniu 02.08.2019 o 17:07, Markus pisze:

On Friday, August 2, 2019, Daniel Koć mailto:daniel@ko%C4%87.pl>> wrote:

 Without using stop_positions, updating public transport routes in
 a (semi-)automated way in a big city (like Warsaw) would be
 impossible:

 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:MARC13/easy-routes
 

Sorry, but i don't understand why this is impossible with only
platforms but no stop positions.

Routing software is reliable only if it connects points on the roads.
How would you propose to do it without them?


--
"Pojechałam truizmem, ale mogę, bo jestem trochę pierdołą" [P. Potocka]






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

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

[Joseph Eisenberg]

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

Consider also how you would route someone from a amenity=cafe node in
a building to a shop=* area in another building across the city, by
car. You have to jump from the node to the nearest highway, follow the
highways to the other side of the city, and then jump back to the
other node. So any router than can handle automobile directions can
also manage bus stops or tram stops or platforms at the side of the
road, without needing anything other than highway or railway ways and
platform or bus stop nodes.

I wasn't able to understand enough of the link about updating transit
features in Warsaw to see how the stop_position nodes were useful. I
understand that some transit agencies provide data about stop
positions, and that's the original reason that the stop_position nodes
were created. There's no problem with keeping them in your city if you
like them, but probably we shouldn't tell new mappers that they are
needed, for example in developing cities around the world that
currently lack any bus stops.

The complexity of the current system, as described on the main pages
in the wiki, can discourage mapping anything (for example, I've been
discouraged from trying to add any of the minibus routes in my part of
Indonesia, since it seemed so complicated to make so many features and
routes).

Joseph


On 8/3/19, Daniel Koć  wrote:
> W dniu 02.08.2019 o 17:07, Markus pisze:
>> On Friday, August 2, 2019, Daniel Koć > > wrote:
>>
>> Without using stop_positions, updating public transport routes in
>> a (semi-)automated way in a big city (like Warsaw) would be
>> impossible:
>>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:MARC13/easy-routes
>> 
>>
>> Sorry, but i don't understand why this is impossible with only
>> platforms but no stop positions.
>
> Routing software is reliable only if it connects points on the roads.
> How would you propose to do it without them?
>
>
> --
> "Pojechałam truizmem, ale mogę, bo jestem trochę pierdołą" [P. Potocka]
>
>

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

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

[Daniel Koć]

W dniu 02.08.2019 o 17:07, Markus pisze:
> On Friday, August 2, 2019, Daniel Koć  > wrote:
>
> Without using stop_positions, updating public transport routes in
> a (semi-)automated way in a big city (like Warsaw) would be
> impossible:
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:MARC13/easy-routes
>  
>
> Sorry, but i don't understand why this is impossible with only
> platforms but no stop positions.

Routing software is reliable only if it connects points on the roads.
How would you propose to do it without them?


-- 
"Pojechałam truizmem, ale mogę, bo jestem trochę pierdołą" [P. Potocka]

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

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

[Leif Rasmussen]

I don't see an issue either.  The stop positions, if needed, can just be
generated from bus stops / platforms.

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

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

[Markus]

On Friday, August 2, 2019, Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

> See "One Feature, One OSM Element" - separate feature tags should not
> be added to the same database object, if at all possible.
>
> [...]
>
> I also consider "bus, tram and train stations could all be tagged
> alike" as a disadvantage since it would lead to ambiguity, like how to
> deal with a station object tagged =station with bus stops, tram stops
> and a railway platforms. It's better if mappers are aware which main
> feature they are tagging, since that's what will have to be handled by
> database users.


There are combined bus/tram stops as well as bus/tram stations. What do you
consider to be the main feature of a combined bus/tram stop or station?

I'm fine with mapping a platform at a bus stop as a separate OSM element,
but i don't understand why (when using PTv1 tags) a train station only
needs a station and platform elements, while a bus or tram station
additionally needs highway=bus_stop or railway=tram_stop elements?

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

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

[Daniel Koć]

W dniu 02.08.2019 o 15:53, Janko Mihelić pisze:
> If we removed stop_positions, that makes creating public transport
> relations much easier.


I'm not involved in this detailed discussion, so I apologise if I don't
get everyting, but better be safe than sorry...

Without using stop_positions, updating public transport routes in a
(semi-)automated way in a big city (like Warsaw) would be impossible:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:MARC13/easy-routes


-- 
"Pojechałam truizmem, ale mogę, bo jestem trochę pierdołą" [P. Potocka]

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

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

[Janko Mihelić]

pet, 2. kol 2019. u 15:34 Markus  napisao je:

> I still see these solutions:
>
> 1. To rename public_transport=platform into public_transport=stop (or
> public_transport=waiting_area) and to abandon
> public_transport=stop_position as well as the PTv1 tags. This would have
> the advantage that bus, tram and train stations could all be tagged alike,
> that tram and bus stops would only need one element even if there is a
> platform (because railway/highway=platform + public_transport=stop could be
> combined) and that public_transport=stop_area were only needed at stations.
> Besides, new transport modes could later be added easily.
>
> 2. Same as 1, but public_transport=platform is not renamed (only
> public_transport=stop_position and PTv1 tags are abandoned). Advantages:
> same as 1; disadvantage: the misnamed public_transport=platform remains.
>
> 3. To abandon PTv2 tags, but to stick to PTv2 routes and to map
> highway=bus_stop/railway=tram_stop beside the road/rails ("Stockholm
> scheme"). Disadvantages: the same that are the advantages of 1.
>

If we removed stop_positions, that makes creating public transport
relations much easier. Just add platforms in the correct order, and then
the route in the correct order. Even better, you don't even need the route.
For public transport routing to work, you just need platforms in the
correct order, and you are done! That would make those huge bus routes with
hundreds of members that go from Croatia to Germany obsolete, and you would
only need a route with several nodes.

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

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

[Joseph Eisenberg]

> "only need one element even if there is a platform"

See "One Feature, One OSM Element" - separate feature tags should not
be added to the same database object, if at all possible.

This is particularly a problem with platforms, which can be mapped as
nodes, lines or areas. That means a way could be a line or an area, so
you need to add "area=yes" to avoid ambiguity.

But bus stops, tram stops, trains stations and bus stations can only
be a node or an area. This means that database users (esp using
osm2pgsql) will treat these features as polygons when mapped as closed
way.

To avoid ambiguity, don't add bus_stop or tram_stop to a
highway=platform or railway=platform line or area please. The platform
is a physical feature, and still exists even if the bus or tram
service is discontinued. The bus_stop or tram_stop node represents a
place a tram stops or bus stops and where the passengers should wait
to get on the vehicle, so changing it to an area isn't beneficial.

I also consider "bus, tram and train stations could all be tagged
alike" as a disadvantage since it would lead to ambiguity, like how to
deal with a station object tagged =station with bus stops, tram stops
and a railway platforms. It's better if mappers are aware which main
feature they are tagging, since that's what will have to be handled by
database users.

Hence, your option 1. (public_transport=stop) advantages are both
disadvantages in this view, which means option 3 (using the original
tags like bus_stop, tram_stop) is the best. It also requires the
fewest tags at most places - a bus stop almost always needs 1 tag, and
these are by far the most common public transit features in the
database.

On 8/2/19, Markus  wrote:
> On Friday, August 2, 2019, yo paseopor  wrote:
>>
>> The only negative point for public transport v2 scheme was the
>> no-deprecation of the old scheme to avoid duplicities (surely was done
>> this
>> to don't uncomfort people)
>> Salut i transport públic (Health and public_transport)
>> yopaseopor
>>
>
> IMHO the main problems are the unnecessary public_transport=stop_position,
> which complicates mapping a lot, and the misnamed
> public_transport=platform, which means waiting area (and may or may not
> have platform), but was intended to also replace railway/highway=platform,
> which means a real platform (a raised structure).
>
> I still see these solutions:
>
> 1. To rename public_transport=platform into public_transport=stop (or
> public_transport=waiting_area) and to abandon
> public_transport=stop_position as well as the PTv1 tags. This would have
> the advantage that bus, tram and train stations could all be tagged alike,
> that tram and bus stops would only need one element even if there is a
> platform (because railway/highway=platform + public_transport=stop could be
> combined) and that public_transport=stop_area were only needed at stations.
> Besides, new transport modes could later be added easily.
>
> 2. Same as 1, but public_transport=platform is not renamed (only
> public_transport=stop_position and PTv1 tags are abandoned). Advantages:
> same as 1; disadvantage: the misnamed public_transport=platform remains.
>
> 3. To abandon PTv2 tags, but to stick to PTv2 routes and to map
> highway=bus_stop/railway=tram_stop beside the road/rails ("Stockholm
> scheme"). Disadvantages: the same that are the advantages of 1.
>
> It were nice if we could (finally) agree on one solution to solve the
> current public transport mess. :)
>
> Regards
>
> Markus
>

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

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

[Markus]

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

IMHO the main problems are the unnecessary public_transport=stop_position,
which complicates mapping a lot, and the misnamed
public_transport=platform, which means waiting area (and may or may not
have platform), but was intended to also replace railway/highway=platform,
which means a real platform (a raised structure).

I still see these solutions:

1. To rename public_transport=platform into public_transport=stop (or
public_transport=waiting_area) and to abandon
public_transport=stop_position as well as the PTv1 tags. This would have
the advantage that bus, tram and train stations could all be tagged alike,
that tram and bus stops would only need one element even if there is a
platform (because railway/highway=platform + public_transport=stop could be
combined) and that public_transport=stop_area were only needed at stations.
Besides, new transport modes could later be added easily.

2. Same as 1, but public_transport=platform is not renamed (only
public_transport=stop_position and PTv1 tags are abandoned). Advantages:
same as 1; disadvantage: the misnamed public_transport=platform remains.

3. To abandon PTv2 tags, but to stick to PTv2 routes and to map
highway=bus_stop/railway=tram_stop beside the road/rails ("Stockholm
scheme"). Disadvantages: the same that are the advantages of 1.

It were nice if we could (finally) agree on one solution to solve the
current public transport mess. :)

Regards

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

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

[yo paseopor]

Yes, one ring (one key=one value) for all kind of public transports because
it is easier to say this key and then what kind of transport do you have in.

It's better:

public_transport=stop_position or
public_transport=platform
and then bus,tram,train,subway,ferry,helicopter,UFO, future's
vehicles...=yes

than

highway=bus_stop
railway=platform
railway=tram_stop
bus_bay=yes
ferry=station
whatever we have to invent in the future=*
...

Also I think if you want to map some complex situations you cannot use only
one node for all of them, as we don't use it in banks and atm's.
Stop_area and stop_area_group are working well with big interchange
stations.
There are 223000+ stop_area relations. And there are 4400+ stop_area_group
relations, should we deprecate them? If you think there is no use about
these tags. Please visit taginfo.
We have a small Mediterranean town called ... Barcelona that uses this
transport scheme and we don't have any problem. You can see it at Osmand,
Maps.me or OPVNkarte.

The only negative point for public transport v2 scheme was the
no-deprecation of the old scheme to avoid duplicities (surely was done this
to don't uncomfort people)
Salut i transport públic (Health and public_transport)
yopaseopor


On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 2:39 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Ferries also seam to be forgotten...
>
> public_transport=platform??? Covers ferry, bus, train, trams ... ??
>
> (One ring to rule them all etc)
>
> With regard to ref. I have bus stops that have 'Stand A' etc near train
> stations. these also carry a reference number that is used by the transport
> company - they are handy if you knowthem as you can type that in as your
> destination or start for there website on finding a trip scheduled/fee.
> Discussion on the Australian list resulted in this
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Bus_Stop_names_and_references
>
>
>
> On 31/07/19 22:43, Jo wrote:
>
> bus_bay = right | left | both (
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/485293336  )
>
> For me the object that represents the bus stop, is always a simple node. I
> don't see a problem for doing that in bus stations as well.
>
> If there are actual platforms, whether in a bus station or somewhere along
> a way, it can be tagged:
>
> highway=platform (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/304753571)
>
> or
>
> or railway=platform (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/255344359)
>
> for trams.
>
> on a way.
>
> These ways don't get the ref, name, route_ref, zone, local_ref, operator,
> network, and so on, those go on the node that represents the bus stop. Only
> that node needs to be added to the route relations. It doesn't get any
> simpler than that.
>
>
> Good. I can see no benefit to adding additional information to the route.
> Things like shelters, toilets etc all become evident when the map is
> viewed. The routeing information does not need it.
>
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/576656712  (example of a bus stop
> served by 3 different operators near Brussels, I only put
> public_transport=platform, bus=yes because for a few years that seemed like
> the right thing to do. Today I wouldn't mind removing those 2 tags once
> again.)
>
> Those platform ways could get:
>
> tactile_paving=yes
> wheelchair=yes
> height=
>
> So there is no real conflict between highway=bus_stop or railway=tram_stop
> on a node
>
> and
>
> highway=platform or railway=platform on a way or an area.
>
> Polyglot
>
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 2:13 PM Paul Allen  wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 at 12:52, Joseph Eisenberg <
>> joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Agreed, there are enough tags for public transport already. I don't
>>> think anything new is needed.
>>>
>>
>> There's something I haven't found a way of mapping.  That's a bus stop
>> where there's a bay
>> inlet into the pavement (aka sidewalk, aka causeway).  If it served a
>> different purpose and
>> had different road markings, it could be a lay-by (aka rest area) or a
>> parking bay.  But it's a
>> bus stop where the bus does not obstruct the flow of traffic.  There are
>> four of those in
>> my town, that I can think of (there may be others I've missed).
>>
>> Yes, I could use area:highway or add area=yes to a closed way, but those
>> don't seem to render
>> on a popular, well-known carto intended for mappers to check their work
>> for anything but
>> pedestrian ways.
>>
>> Is there a way of doing it that I've missed?  If not, could we have one?
>>
>> Example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=20/52.08760/-4.65318
>>
>> --
>> Paul
>>
>> ___
>> 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
> 

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

[Markus]

On Thursday, August 1, 2019, Philip Barnes  wrote:
>
> It is probably true that for a particular train, at a particular time,
> will normally use the same platform you cannot assume that all trains
> to a particular destination will always use the same platform.
>
> [...]
>
> As a regular rail user I am very aware that you cannot assume which
> platform and you always need to check the displays, or maybe use an
> app. An app is useful to find out which platform you are going into if
> you need a quick escape so can be standing by the door on the correct
> side.
>

It seems that it depends on the country. Here in Switzerland, a train of a
particular route always departs from the same platform, except if there are
rail works, a breakdown or similar, in which case there is an announcement
on the usual platform that the train exceptionally departs from another
platform. (For example, in Bern, IC 1 to Geneva always departs from
platform 5 and IR 15 to Lucerne always from platform 7.) Thus, i think it
makes sense to include the platforms in the route relation here.

Regards from the (almost) train paradise :)

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

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

[Philip Barnes]

On Wed, 2019-07-31 at 18:48 +0200, Markus wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 at 15:08, Peter Neale via Tagging
>  wrote:
> > Within the station there will normally be several platforms, which
> > may be named "Platform 1", "Platform 2"... ...or "Platform A",
> > "Platform B" etc.  These could / should be mapped and given an name
> > tag.
> 
> Common practice is to use ref=*, not name=*, because it's the number
> or letter of the platform, not its name. (This also has the advantage
> that e.g. routers can translate it into other languages.)
> 
> > Whilst trains for particular destinations may NORMALLY use a
> > certain platform, that can vary, depending on breakdowns, delays,
> > scheduling issues, etc. so the Platforms should not be tagged with
> > further information about the trains / route(s) using them.
> 
> I disagree. If the train normally uses the same platform, except in
> some rare moments, i think it helps to know from which platform it
> departs. Note that bus stops sometimes can also be displaced or even
> omitted because of roadworks, breakdowns, delays etc.
> 
You can make that statement for a relatively simple station, where
there are two platforms and all northbound trains stop at Platform 1
and all southbound trains stop at Platform 2. Major stations are much
more complex.

It is probably true that for a particular train, at a particular time,
will normally use the same platform you cannot assume that all trains
to a particular destination will always use the same platform. 

Trains to a destination can have arrived form different directions, and
the platform will depend on that and what other trains are there at the
same time.

As a regular rail user I am very aware that you cannot assume which
platform and you always need to check the displays, or maybe use an
app. An app is useful to find out which platform you are going into if
you need a quick escape so can be standing by the door on the correct
side.

Go to Euston for example, go at any time, and you will see vast numbers
of people watching the boards, waiting for the platform to be
announced.

Phil (trigpoint)


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

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 1. Aug 2019, at 02:59, Joseph Eisenberg  wrote:
> 
> Ferries use just amenity=ferry_terminal and route=ferry. You can also map the 
> man_made=pier as the equivalent of a “platform”.


yes, although there is also a proposal for seaway=ferry_port which is suitable 
for terminals and other ports:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Seaway

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

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

[Daniel Koć]

W dniu 01.08.2019 o 02:56, Joseph Eisenberg pisze:
> I’m not certain if any database users actually manage stop_area
> relations for public transit?

I'm not sure if you ask if stop_area tag is useful at all or you ask
only about such relation.

In Warsaw there are like 300 lines, if I remember correctly, and every
day some of them are changing, so the script is used to prepare routing
(to be tuned manually before commiting to a database). I'm not sure if
this is still used currently, but I can't imagine any better way to
manage this.


-- 
"Pojechałam truizmem, ale mogę, bo jestem trochę pierdołą" [P. Potocka]



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

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

[Joseph Eisenberg]

Ferries use just amenity=ferry_terminal and route=ferry. You can also map
the man_made=pier as the equivalent of a “platform”.

Similarly, aerialways like gondolas have their own station tag,
aerialway=station.

The public_transport tags have never been popular for ferries or
“aerialways”.

On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 9:39 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Ferries also seam to be forgotten...
>
> public_transport=platform??? Covers ferry, bus, train, trams ... ??
>
> (One ring to rule them all etc)
>
> With regard to ref. I have bus stops that have 'Stand A' etc near train
> stations. these also carry a reference number that is used by the transport
> company - they are handy if you knowthem as you can type that in as your
> destination or start for there website on finding a trip scheduled/fee.
> Discussion on the Australian list resulted in this
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Bus_Stop_names_and_references
>
>
>
> On 31/07/19 22:43, Jo wrote:
>
> bus_bay = right | left | both (
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/485293336  )
>
> For me the object that represents the bus stop, is always a simple node. I
> don't see a problem for doing that in bus stations as well.
>
> If there are actual platforms, whether in a bus station or somewhere along
> a way, it can be tagged:
>
> highway=platform (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/304753571)
>
> or
>
> or railway=platform (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/255344359)
>
> for trams.
>
> on a way.
>
> These ways don't get the ref, name, route_ref, zone, local_ref, operator,
> network, and so on, those go on the node that represents the bus stop. Only
> that node needs to be added to the route relations. It doesn't get any
> simpler than that.
>
>
> Good. I can see no benefit to adding additional information to the route.
> Things like shelters, toilets etc all become evident when the map is
> viewed. The routeing information does not need it.
>
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/576656712  (example of a bus stop
> served by 3 different operators near Brussels, I only put
> public_transport=platform, bus=yes because for a few years that seemed like
> the right thing to do. Today I wouldn't mind removing those 2 tags once
> again.)
>
> Those platform ways could get:
>
> tactile_paving=yes
> wheelchair=yes
> height=
>
> So there is no real conflict between highway=bus_stop or railway=tram_stop
> on a node
>
> and
>
> highway=platform or railway=platform on a way or an area.
>
> Polyglot
>
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 2:13 PM Paul Allen  wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 at 12:52, Joseph Eisenberg <
>> joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Agreed, there are enough tags for public transport already. I don't
>>> think anything new is needed.
>>>
>>
>> There's something I haven't found a way of mapping.  That's a bus stop
>> where there's a bay
>> inlet into the pavement (aka sidewalk, aka causeway).  If it served a
>> different purpose and
>> had different road markings, it could be a lay-by (aka rest area) or a
>> parking bay.  But it's a
>> bus stop where the bus does not obstruct the flow of traffic.  There are
>> four of those in
>> my town, that I can think of (there may be others I've missed).
>>
>> Yes, I could use area:highway or add area=yes to a closed way, but those
>> don't seem to render
>> on a popular, well-known carto intended for mappers to check their work
>> for anything but
>> pedestrian ways.
>>
>> Is there a way of doing it that I've missed?  If not, could we have one?
>>
>> Example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=20/52.08760/-4.65318
>>
>> --
>> Paul
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

[Joseph Eisenberg]

If you read the talk page of the proposal,it’s clear that the stop_area
relations are optional. I actually think that needs to be further clarified
in the main text.

I’m not certain if any database users actually manage stop_area relations
for public transit?

The ref can go on just the highway=bus_stop as a few other people and the
proposal suggest.

The highway=platform way is like a highway=footway of building=roof which
you might also add to the same vicinity to represent real features: it’s a
real, physical feature; an elevated area for passengers to board or alight.

The bus stop node represents the bus service and is always present whether
or not there is a physical platform, so it’s what you add to the route
relation in the proposal. It looks like this is already fairly common
practice.

Joseph

On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 1:32 AM Markus  wrote:

> On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 at 13:52, Joseph Eisenberg
>  wrote:
> >
> > Agreed, there are enough tags for public transport already. I don't
> > think anything new is needed.
>
> My idea was actually to replace the misnamed public_transport=platform
> with public_transport=stop and to abandon highway=bus_stop and
> railway=tram_stop as well as public_transport=stop_position. All in
> all that's not more tags, but three less.
>
> Besides, as there were only one element per stop (even if the stop is
> a platform), public_transport=stop_area would only be necessary at
> stations.
>
> > If there is a platform where buses stop, then there's a bus stop, and
> > a platform. The platform is a physical feature, and I believe it would
> > still be a highway=platform even if the bus service were discontinued.
>
> I agree, it remains a highway=platform even if it's not operated
> anymore. But when it's operated, the platform actually represents a
> bus stop.
>
> > [...]
> >
> > The ref= should go on whatever of the two features that it actual
> > refers to: if it's on the bus stop sign or pole, it probably
> > represents the bus stop, but it might actually refer to the physical
> > platform and each different bus route that stops there might have a
> > different ref=* for that bus stop.
>
> The number in my example refers to the place where people wait for the
> buses, for numbers 1–7 this is the platform and for number 8 it is the
> place on the sidewalk. So, where should i put ref=1 ... ref=7
> according to you? On highway=platform, on highway=bus_stop or on both?
> And which one of them should i add to the route relation? It were a
> lot easier if there were just one object.
>
> > Perhaps sometimes you'll have to add the ref=* to both the stop and
> > the platform, but that's ok. The public_transport=stop_position +
> > =platform + stop_area idea often leads to putting the same ref on 3
> > different objects.
> >
> > In all other situations (rail platforms, regular bus stops without an
> > elevated platform, tram stops etc), the Refined_Public_Transport
> > proposal is clearly simpler than using public_transport=* tags, so it
> > looks like a good option.
>
> I find that proposal to be inconsistent and unnecessarily complex.
> Inconsistent because sometimes highway=bus_stop has to be mapped
> beside the road and at other times on the road, and because sometimes
> there is one highway=bus_stop for one stop and at other times there is
> one highway=bus_stop for two stops. And unnecessarily complex because
> it not only requires a stop_area, but also a stop_area_group. In
> contrast, my suggestion would only require stop_area's at stations.
>
> Regards
>
> Markus
>
> ___
> 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] Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

[Warin]

Ferries also seam to be forgotten...

public_transport=platform??? Covers ferry, bus, train, trams ... ??

(One ring to rule them all etc)

With regard to ref. I have bus stops that have 'Stand A' etc near train 
stations. these also carry a reference number that is used by the 
transport company - they are handy if you knowthem as you can type that 
in as your destination or start for there website on finding a trip 
scheduled/fee. Discussion on the Australian list resulted in this 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Bus_Stop_names_and_references




On 31/07/19 22:43, Jo wrote:
bus_bay = right | left | both ( 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/485293336  )


For me the object that represents the bus stop, is always a simple 
node. I don't see a problem for doing that in bus stations as well.


If there are actual platforms, whether in a bus station or somewhere 
along a way, it can be tagged:


highway=platform (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/304753571)

or

or railway=platform (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/255344359)

for trams.

on a way.

These ways don't get the ref, name, route_ref, zone, local_ref, 
operator, network, and so on, those go on the node that represents the 
bus stop. Only that node needs to be added to the route relations. It 
doesn't get any simpler than that.


Good. I can see no benefit to adding additional information to the 
route. Things like shelters, toilets etc all become evident when the map 
is viewed. The routeing information does not need it.


https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/576656712 (example of a bus stop 
served by 3 different operators near Brussels, I only put 
public_transport=platform, bus=yes because for a few years that seemed 
like the right thing to do. Today I wouldn't mind removing those 2 
tags once again.)


Those platform ways could get:

tactile_paving=yes
wheelchair=yes
height=

So there is no real conflict between highway=bus_stop or 
railway=tram_stop on a node


and

highway=platform or railway=platform on a way or an area.

Polyglot

On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 2:13 PM Paul Allen > wrote:


On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 at 12:52, Joseph Eisenberg
mailto:joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>>
wrote:

Agreed, there are enough tags for public transport already. I
don't
think anything new is needed.


There's something I haven't found a way of mapping. That's a bus
stop where there's a bay
inlet into the pavement (aka sidewalk, aka causeway).  If it
served a different purpose and
had different road markings, it could be a lay-by (aka rest area)
or a parking bay.  But it's a
bus stop where the bus does not obstruct the flow of traffic. 
There are four of those in
my town, that I can think of (there may be others I've missed).

Yes, I could use area:highway or add area=yes to a closed way, but
those don't seem to render
on a popular, well-known carto intended for mappers to check their
work for anything but
pedestrian ways.

Is there a way of doing it that I've missed?  If not, could we
have one?

Example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=20/52.08760/-4.65318

-- 
Paul


___
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] Was public_transport=platform intended to > always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

[Jo]

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

On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 7:07 PM Peter Neale via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Hi Markus,
>
> Thank you for your comments.
>
> I stand corrected on the Name v. Ref issue.  You are right; it would be
> better to map a platform and tag it with Ref= .
>
> As regards your other comment; I stand by my view that it is useful to
> know which services stop at a given station, but that any user wishing to
> travel would expect to check which platform to stand on, as that could be
> changed at short notice.  So adding that detail to the map would not (IMHO)
> be useful.
>
> Regards,
>
> Peter
>
> On Wednesday, 31 July 2019, 17:49:06 BST, Markus <
> selfishseaho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 at 15:08, Peter Neale via Tagging
>  wrote:
> >
> > Within the station there will normally be several platforms, which may
> be named "Platform 1", "Platform 2"... ...or "Platform A", "Platform B"
> etc.  These could / should be mapped and given an name tag.
>
> Common practice is to use ref=*, not name=*, because it's the number
> or letter of the platform, not its name. (This also has the advantage
> that e.g. routers can translate it into other languages.)
>
> > Whilst trains for particular destinations may NORMALLY use a certain
> platform, that can vary, depending on breakdowns, delays, scheduling
> issues, etc. so the Platforms should not be tagged with further information
> about the trains / route(s) using them.
>
> I disagree. If the train normally uses the same platform, except in
> some rare moments, i think it helps to know from which platform it
> departs. Note that bus stops sometimes can also be displaced or even
> omitted because of roadworks, breakdowns, delays etc.
>
>
> Regards
>
> Markus
> ___
> 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] Was public_transport=platform intended to > always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

[Peter Neale via Tagging]

Hi Markus,
Thank you for your comments.
I stand corrected on the Name v. Ref issue.  You are right; it would be better 
to map a platform and tag it with Ref= .
As regards your other comment; I stand by my view that it is useful to know 
which services stop at a given station, but that any user wishing to travel 
would expect to check which platform to stand on, as that could be changed at 
short notice.  So adding that detail to the map would not (IMHO) be useful.   
Regards,
Peter
On Wednesday, 31 July 2019, 17:49:06 BST, Markus 
 wrote:  
 
 On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 at 15:08, Peter Neale via Tagging
 wrote:
>
> Within the station there will normally be several platforms, which may be 
> named "Platform 1", "Platform 2"... ...or "Platform A", "Platform B" etc.  
> These could / should be mapped and given an name tag.

Common practice is to use ref=*, not name=*, because it's the number
or letter of the platform, not its name. (This also has the advantage
that e.g. routers can translate it into other languages.)

> Whilst trains for particular destinations may NORMALLY use a certain 
> platform, that can vary, depending on breakdowns, delays, scheduling issues, 
> etc. so the Platforms should not be tagged with further information about the 
> trains / route(s) using them.

I disagree. If the train normally uses the same platform, except in
some rare moments, i think it helps to know from which platform it
departs. Note that bus stops sometimes can also be displaced or even
omitted because of roadworks, breakdowns, delays etc.

Regards

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

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

[Markus]

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

Common practice is to use ref=*, not name=*, because it's the number
or letter of the platform, not its name. (This also has the advantage
that e.g. routers can translate it into other languages.)

> Whilst trains for particular destinations may NORMALLY use a certain 
> platform, that can vary, depending on breakdowns, delays, scheduling issues, 
> etc. so the Platforms should not be tagged with further information about the 
> trains / route(s) using them.

I disagree. If the train normally uses the same platform, except in
some rare moments, i think it helps to know from which platform it
departs. Note that bus stops sometimes can also be displaced or even
omitted because of roadworks, breakdowns, delays etc.

Regards

Markus

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

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

[Markus]

On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 at 13:52, Joseph Eisenberg
 wrote:
>
> Agreed, there are enough tags for public transport already. I don't
> think anything new is needed.

My idea was actually to replace the misnamed public_transport=platform
with public_transport=stop and to abandon highway=bus_stop and
railway=tram_stop as well as public_transport=stop_position. All in
all that's not more tags, but three less.

Besides, as there were only one element per stop (even if the stop is
a platform), public_transport=stop_area would only be necessary at
stations.

> If there is a platform where buses stop, then there's a bus stop, and
> a platform. The platform is a physical feature, and I believe it would
> still be a highway=platform even if the bus service were discontinued.

I agree, it remains a highway=platform even if it's not operated
anymore. But when it's operated, the platform actually represents a
bus stop.

> [...]
>
> The ref= should go on whatever of the two features that it actual
> refers to: if it's on the bus stop sign or pole, it probably
> represents the bus stop, but it might actually refer to the physical
> platform and each different bus route that stops there might have a
> different ref=* for that bus stop.

The number in my example refers to the place where people wait for the
buses, for numbers 1–7 this is the platform and for number 8 it is the
place on the sidewalk. So, where should i put ref=1 ... ref=7
according to you? On highway=platform, on highway=bus_stop or on both?
And which one of them should i add to the route relation? It were a
lot easier if there were just one object.

> Perhaps sometimes you'll have to add the ref=* to both the stop and
> the platform, but that's ok. The public_transport=stop_position +
> =platform + stop_area idea often leads to putting the same ref on 3
> different objects.
>
> In all other situations (rail platforms, regular bus stops without an
> elevated platform, tram stops etc), the Refined_Public_Transport
> proposal is clearly simpler than using public_transport=* tags, so it
> looks like a good option.

I find that proposal to be inconsistent and unnecessarily complex.
Inconsistent because sometimes highway=bus_stop has to be mapped
beside the road and at other times on the road, and because sometimes
there is one highway=bus_stop for one stop and at other times there is
one highway=bus_stop for two stops. And unnecessarily complex because
it not only requires a stop_area, but also a stop_area_group. In
contrast, my suggestion would only require stop_area's at stations.

Regards

Markus

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

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

[Peter Neale via Tagging]

FWIW, I agree; No more tags, please, when we can manage with those that we have.
Busses stop at bus-stops and the route information shows which bus-stops they 
serve and the times when they are due there, so these should be tagged with ID, 
Ref Number, etc. as appropriate.  
A platform is a raised structure, constructed to bring the passengers up to, or 
near, the same level as the floor in the transport vehicle (bus, tram, train).  
So, if there is a platform at the bus-stop, that can be mapped, just as tactile 
pavement might be, but needs no more tags.
Trains stop at stations and the route information and timetable show which 
stations they serve and when they are due to arrive/depart, so the whole area 
should be mapped and tagged as a station.  Within the station there will 
normally be several platforms, which may be named "Platform 1", "Platform 2"... 
...or "Platform A", "Platform B" etc.  These could / should be mapped and given 
an name tag.  Whilst trains for particular destinations may NORMALLY use a 
certain platform, that can vary, depending on breakdowns, delays, scheduling 
issues, etc. so the Platforms should not be tagged with further information 
about the trains / route(s) using them.
The only potential issues I can see with my own argument above are:  How will 
the stations be connected to the railway lines? / Do they need to be? / How 
does the train route relation connect lines and stations? 
I do hope that helps, rather than just making things more confusing. 
Peter    
>Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2019 20:51:13 +0900
>From: Joseph Eisenberg 
>To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
    
>Subject: Re: [Tagging] Was public_transport=platform intended to
>    always be combined with highway=bus_stop?
>Message-ID:
>    
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

>Agreed, there are enough tags for public transport already. I don't
>think anything new is needed.

>If there is a platform where buses stop, then there's a bus stop, and
>a platform. The platform is a physical feature, and I believe it would
>still be a highway=platform even if the bus service were discontinued.

>The bus stop represents that public buses actually stop at the
>location to pick up or drop off passengers.

>The ref= should go on whatever of the two features that it actual
>refers to: if it's on the bus stop sign or pole, it probably
>represents the bus stop, but it might actually refer to the physical
>platform and each different bus route that stops there might have a
>different ref=* for that bus stop.

>Perhaps sometimes you'll have to add the ref=* to both the stop and
>the platform, but that's ok. The public_transport=stop_position +
>=platform + stop_area idea often leads to putting the same ref on 3
>different objects.

>In all other situations (rail platforms, regular bus stops without an
>elevated platform, tram stops etc), the Refined_Public_Transport>proposal is 
>clearly simpler than using public_transport=* tags, so it
>looks like a good option.

>Joseph

>>On 7/31/19, yo paseopor  wrote:
>> please: NO MORE TAGS
>> Either... can we mix all the tags of all the versions of Public transport
>> into a UNIQUE scheme for ALL kinds of transports, tagging it at the same
>> way with the same name: from electric autonomous buses to new Uber's
>> helicopters?
>> A scheme has to be scalable. Can we define that? Can we design that?
>> -Basic parts>> -Basic tags
>> -Basic values
>>
>> And then... some kind of automated conversion of tags done by local
>> communities, with specific instructions at the wiki. Also tag as deprecated
>> all the old mixed stuff.
>>
>> What do you think?
>> Salut i mapes (health and maps)>> yopaseopor
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 10:37 AM Markus  wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Joseph
>>>
>>> On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 at 15:59, Joseph Eisenberg
>>>  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I still haven't seen any benefit in adding public_transport=platform
>> >> to highway=bus_stop or highway=platform or railway=platform features,
>> >> and it doesn't look like the =stop_position tag is needed for routers
>> >> either, so all 3 of the main public_transport tags (except perhaps the
>> >> stop_area relation?) are rarely helpful.
>>>
>>> I agree, and it seems that most people that took part in this long
>>> discussion [1] i initiated in April about improving public transport
>>> mapping agreed too.
>>>
>>> [1]:
>>> 
>>>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-transit/2019-April/002052.html
>>>
>>> While highway=bus_stop works in most simpler cases, it doesn't work
>>> very well for bus stations. For example, consider this simplified map
>>> of the postbus station in Bern. [2]
>>>
>>> [2]: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Postautostation_Bern.svg
>>>
>>> It consists of seven platforms, numbered 1–7, and a mere pole on the>>> 
>>> sidewalk with the number 8. As highway=bus_stop and highway=platform
>>> both use the the highway=* key and thus can't be combined, for every
>>> platform i would need to map a 

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

[Jo]

bus_bay = right | left | both (  https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/485293336
  )

For me the object that represents the bus stop, is always a simple node. I
don't see a problem for doing that in bus stations as well.

If there are actual platforms, whether in a bus station or somewhere along
a way, it can be tagged:

highway=platform (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/304753571)

or

or railway=platform (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/255344359)

for trams.

on a way.

These ways don't get the ref, name, route_ref, zone, local_ref, operator,
network, and so on, those go on the node that represents the bus stop. Only
that node needs to be added to the route relations. It doesn't get any
simpler than that.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/576656712  (example of a bus stop served
by 3 different operators near Brussels, I only put
public_transport=platform, bus=yes because for a few years that seemed like
the right thing to do. Today I wouldn't mind removing those 2 tags once
again.)

Those platform ways could get:

tactile_paving=yes
wheelchair=yes
height=

So there is no real conflict between highway=bus_stop or railway=tram_stop
on a node

and

highway=platform or railway=platform on a way or an area.

Polyglot

On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 2:13 PM Paul Allen  wrote:

> On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 at 12:52, Joseph Eisenberg 
> wrote:
>
>> Agreed, there are enough tags for public transport already. I don't
>> think anything new is needed.
>>
>
> There's something I haven't found a way of mapping.  That's a bus stop
> where there's a bay
> inlet into the pavement (aka sidewalk, aka causeway).  If it served a
> different purpose and
> had different road markings, it could be a lay-by (aka rest area) or a
> parking bay.  But it's a
> bus stop where the bus does not obstruct the flow of traffic.  There are
> four of those in
> my town, that I can think of (there may be others I've missed).
>
> Yes, I could use area:highway or add area=yes to a closed way, but those
> don't seem to render
> on a popular, well-known carto intended for mappers to check their work
> for anything but
> pedestrian ways.
>
> Is there a way of doing it that I've missed?  If not, could we have one?
>
> Example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=20/52.08760/-4.65318
>
> --
> Paul
>
> ___
> 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] Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

[Paul Allen]

On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 at 12:52, Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

> Agreed, there are enough tags for public transport already. I don't
> think anything new is needed.
>

There's something I haven't found a way of mapping.  That's a bus stop
where there's a bay
inlet into the pavement (aka sidewalk, aka causeway).  If it served a
different purpose and
had different road markings, it could be a lay-by (aka rest area) or a
parking bay.  But it's a
bus stop where the bus does not obstruct the flow of traffic.  There are
four of those in
my town, that I can think of (there may be others I've missed).

Yes, I could use area:highway or add area=yes to a closed way, but those
don't seem to render
on a popular, well-known carto intended for mappers to check their work for
anything but
pedestrian ways.

Is there a way of doing it that I've missed?  If not, could we have one?

Example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=20/52.08760/-4.65318

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

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

[Joseph Eisenberg]

Agreed, there are enough tags for public transport already. I don't
think anything new is needed.

If there is a platform where buses stop, then there's a bus stop, and
a platform. The platform is a physical feature, and I believe it would
still be a highway=platform even if the bus service were discontinued.

The bus stop represents that public buses actually stop at the
location to pick up or drop off passengers.

The ref= should go on whatever of the two features that it actual
refers to: if it's on the bus stop sign or pole, it probably
represents the bus stop, but it might actually refer to the physical
platform and each different bus route that stops there might have a
different ref=* for that bus stop.

Perhaps sometimes you'll have to add the ref=* to both the stop and
the platform, but that's ok. The public_transport=stop_position +
=platform + stop_area idea often leads to putting the same ref on 3
different objects.

In all other situations (rail platforms, regular bus stops without an
elevated platform, tram stops etc), the Refined_Public_Transport
proposal is clearly simpler than using public_transport=* tags, so it
looks like a good option.

Joseph

On 7/31/19, yo paseopor  wrote:
> please: NO MORE TAGS
> Either... can we mix all the tags of all the versions of Public transport
> into a UNIQUE scheme for ALL kinds of transports, tagging it at the same
> way with the same name: from electric autonomous buses to new Uber's
> helicopters?
> A scheme has to be scalable. Can we define that? Can we design that?
> -Basic parts
> -Basic tags
> -Basic values
>
> And then... some kind of automated conversion of tags done by local
> communities, with specific instructions at the wiki. Also tag as deprecated
> all the old mixed stuff.
>
> What do you think?
> Salut i mapes (health and maps)
> yopaseopor
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 10:37 AM Markus  wrote:
>
>> Hi Joseph
>>
>> On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 at 15:59, Joseph Eisenberg
>>  wrote:
>> >
>> > I still haven't seen any benefit in adding public_transport=platform
>> > to highway=bus_stop or highway=platform or railway=platform features,
>> > and it doesn't look like the =stop_position tag is needed for routers
>> > either, so all 3 of the main public_transport tags (except perhaps the
>> > stop_area relation?) are rarely helpful.
>>
>> I agree, and it seems that most people that took part in this long
>> discussion [1] i initiated in April about improving public transport
>> mapping agreed too.
>>
>> [1]:
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-transit/2019-April/002052.html
>>
>> While highway=bus_stop works in most simpler cases, it doesn't work
>> very well for bus stations. For example, consider this simplified map
>> of the postbus station in Bern. [2]
>>
>> [2]: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Postautostation_Bern.svg
>>
>> It consists of seven platforms, numbered 1–7, and a mere pole on the
>> sidewalk with the number 8. As highway=bus_stop and highway=platform
>> both use the the highway=* key and thus can't be combined, for every
>> platform i would need to map a highway=platform and a highway=bus_stop
>> object. But which one should get the ref=*? Both? And which one should
>> be added to the route relation? Usually highway=bus_stop is added to
>> the route relation, but for trains, it is the platform.
>>
>> A possible solution of this problem were to invent a new tag for
>> stops, which doesn't use the highway=* or railway=* key and thus can
>> be combined with highway/railway=platform (e.g. public_transport=stop;
>> or, alternatively, a new tag for platforms). However, i haven't got
>> any feedback on that idea, so i don't know whether the community would
>> accept such a change in tagging.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Markus
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

[yo paseopor]

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

And then... some kind of automated conversion of tags done by local
communities, with specific instructions at the wiki. Also tag as deprecated
all the old mixed stuff.

What do you think?
Salut i mapes (health and maps)
yopaseopor


On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 10:37 AM Markus  wrote:

> Hi Joseph
>
> On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 at 15:59, Joseph Eisenberg
>  wrote:
> >
> > I still haven't seen any benefit in adding public_transport=platform
> > to highway=bus_stop or highway=platform or railway=platform features,
> > and it doesn't look like the =stop_position tag is needed for routers
> > either, so all 3 of the main public_transport tags (except perhaps the
> > stop_area relation?) are rarely helpful.
>
> I agree, and it seems that most people that took part in this long
> discussion [1] i initiated in April about improving public transport
> mapping agreed too.
>
> [1]:
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-transit/2019-April/002052.html
>
> While highway=bus_stop works in most simpler cases, it doesn't work
> very well for bus stations. For example, consider this simplified map
> of the postbus station in Bern. [2]
>
> [2]: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Postautostation_Bern.svg
>
> It consists of seven platforms, numbered 1–7, and a mere pole on the
> sidewalk with the number 8. As highway=bus_stop and highway=platform
> both use the the highway=* key and thus can't be combined, for every
> platform i would need to map a highway=platform and a highway=bus_stop
> object. But which one should get the ref=*? Both? And which one should
> be added to the route relation? Usually highway=bus_stop is added to
> the route relation, but for trains, it is the platform.
>
> A possible solution of this problem were to invent a new tag for
> stops, which doesn't use the highway=* or railway=* key and thus can
> be combined with highway/railway=platform (e.g. public_transport=stop;
> or, alternatively, a new tag for platforms). However, i haven't got
> any feedback on that idea, so i don't know whether the community would
> accept such a change in tagging.
>
> Regards
>
> Markus
>
> ___
> 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] Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

[Markus]

Hi Joseph

On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 at 15:59, Joseph Eisenberg
 wrote:
>
> I still haven't seen any benefit in adding public_transport=platform
> to highway=bus_stop or highway=platform or railway=platform features,
> and it doesn't look like the =stop_position tag is needed for routers
> either, so all 3 of the main public_transport tags (except perhaps the
> stop_area relation?) are rarely helpful.

I agree, and it seems that most people that took part in this long
discussion [1] i initiated in April about improving public transport
mapping agreed too.

[1]: 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-transit/2019-April/002052.html

While highway=bus_stop works in most simpler cases, it doesn't work
very well for bus stations. For example, consider this simplified map
of the postbus station in Bern. [2]

[2]: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Postautostation_Bern.svg

It consists of seven platforms, numbered 1–7, and a mere pole on the
sidewalk with the number 8. As highway=bus_stop and highway=platform
both use the the highway=* key and thus can't be combined, for every
platform i would need to map a highway=platform and a highway=bus_stop
object. But which one should get the ref=*? Both? And which one should
be added to the route relation? Usually highway=bus_stop is added to
the route relation, but for trains, it is the platform.

A possible solution of this problem were to invent a new tag for
stops, which doesn't use the highway=* or railway=* key and thus can
be combined with highway/railway=platform (e.g. public_transport=stop;
or, alternatively, a new tag for platforms). However, i haven't got
any feedback on that idea, so i don't know whether the community would
accept such a change in tagging.

Regards

Markus

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

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

[Joseph Eisenberg]

I got the information about the origin of the dispute about
highway=bus_stop next to or on the way from this page:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:highway%3Dbus_stop#Contradictions_in_the_wiki

"In the early days of OSM, the bus stops were mapped beside the street
simply because the poles are beside the street. ... A couple of
software developers adapted this in several imports 
At that point, X came around with the idea to import data from
professional sources ... Transmodel). ... After some imports with the
shifted model, the data was quite messed, because highway=bus_stop got
ambigous for either the pole beside the street or a technical datum
from Transmodel on the street.
... X put a lot of time in writing wiki pages. In the end, the wiki
was less ... in line with the majority of the exisiting data and
software tools. ... To stop worsening the wiki, the 2010 proposal was
organized. Of course, X was involved in the proposal ...
This ended up with a proposal that is even more complex ... ,  simply
because it is intentionally vague. But at least it contains a way to
make the people passionate on On-Street-Stops happy by using their
specific tagging. ..."

I don't know if this is a fair assessment of the history, but it does
suggest that the problem with that imported data from some sources had
the nodes on the highway.

It does sound like everyone agrees on the history that some mappers
wanted to move highway=bus_stop to the highway way, but most wanted it
besides the way. So public_transport=stop_position was created, plus
bus=yes and train=yes to say what sort of vehicle stops there  - but
then there was also a new tag public_transport=platform, so now the
proposal suggested adding 2 points with at least 2 main feature tags,
plus name / operator / ref etc, for each place a bus stops.

And later, people who wanted to deprecate highway=bus_stop and
railway=platform realized that public_transport=platform isn't a full
replacement, so they recommended adding bus=yes or train=yes etc to
each public_transport=platform feature, which leads to 3 tags for each
one.

I still haven't seen any benefit in adding public_transport=platform
to highway=bus_stop or highway=platform or railway=platform features,
and it doesn't look like the =stop_position tag is needed for routers
either, so all 3 of the main public_transport tags (except perhaps the
stop_area relation?) are rarely helpful.

Joseph

On 7/30/19, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
> Am Di., 30. Juli 2019 um 11:47 Uhr schrieb Jo :
>
>> By the way, I don't think the 'schism' of some people/countries mapping
>> the stops as nodes of/on the highway and others nodes/ways next to the
>> highway comes from an import in Switzerland. I think it came from habits
>> in
>> mapping of railway infrastructure. At one point, we had a single way for
>> multiple tracks, then we added more detail. Back then it made sense to
>> have
>> station nodes on those ways.
>>
>
>
> for me it was a new interpretation as well, that the dispute about bus stop
> nodes on the highway and nodes aside the highway was based in an import
> which "had the node in the center of the highway". It doesn't seem
> completely logical, because it would make an import more complicated, not
> less, if you had to add the node to a highway.

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

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Di., 30. Juli 2019 um 11:47 Uhr schrieb Jo :

> By the way, I don't think the 'schism' of some people/countries mapping
> the stops as nodes of/on the highway and others nodes/ways next to the
> highway comes from an import in Switzerland. I think it came from habits in
> mapping of railway infrastructure. At one point, we had a single way for
> multiple tracks, then we added more detail. Back then it made sense to have
> station nodes on those ways.
>


for me it was a new interpretation as well, that the dispute about bus stop
nodes on the highway and nodes aside the highway was based in an import
which "had the node in the center of the highway". It doesn't seem
completely logical, because it would make an import more complicated, not
less, if you had to add the node to a highway. This topic was discussed a
lot, so it may be rather impossible from reading old threads how it came to
the situation, from what I remember there were numerous proponents in both
camps. and it doesn't really matter, because we are a step further and have
more competing alternatives now ;-)

WRT stations, there were a lot of variations out there in the early days,
some people adding the railway=station tag on the main station building or
a node within the building, others as part of a rail, again others near the
centroid of the rails in the station but not part of a rail and some places
even had nodes with railway=station on every rail in the station. This mess
was structured by inventing stop positions, some stations have been mapped
as polygons, and generally by agreeing to not use more than one
railway=station per station.

Back to your main question: was pt intended to replace the legacy tags,
e.g. bus_stop?
Maybe, but it doesn't really matter what it was intended for, almost 10
years ago. Let's document what we have now. The standing of tags derives
mainly from their usage in the map, and much less from voting in the wiki
(because a deprecation is only about the voting outcome, it isn't about
meaning, as is a proposal).
>From my reading, we now have 2 de-facto tags (tag/combination) for
bus_stops, with the legacy tag still (and maybe forever) dominating the
ptv2 usage (for bus stops).

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

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

[Jo]

By the way, I don't think the 'schism' of some people/countries mapping the
stops as nodes of/on the highway and others nodes/ways next to the highway
comes from an import in Switzerland. I think it came from habits in mapping
of railway infrastructure. At one point, we had a single way for multiple
tracks, then we added more detail. Back then it made sense to have station
nodes on those ways. But that is more like a model and it doesn't represent
reality very well, once you want to start adding more detail, like the
separate platforms in the stations.

Polyglot

On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 11:41 AM Jo  wrote:

> duplicating information across multiple objects.
>
> I found that what works best is to have nodes on the side of the road to
> represent the stops. These nodes have positional information and can carry
> all the tags for the details.
>
> If there is an actual elevated platform, it can be represented by a way or
> an area, but I don't see any need to move the details tags from the node to
> that area. Nor do I see a need to move them to a shelter area, if there is
> one, or to a bench or a waste basket that has the typical colours of the
> operator. For these ways / areas highway=platform / railway = platform is
> enough. Additional tags can be wheelchair yes, tactile_paving=yes and maybe
> height.
>
> The platfrorms are just additional features that may be there, or not.
>
> When I still had the idea that one day public_transport=platform /
> stop_position would actually supersede highway=bus_stop / railway=tram_stop
> / station and so on, I started adding bus = yes to the pt=platform nodes.
> Now I see less point into continuing to do so. The only advantage it has,
> is that JOSM will automatcially assign platform roles to such nodes.
>
> Nowadays, I'd say let's indeed drop the whole public_transport schema.
> Somewhat radical, but a simple schema is better than a complex one.
>
> Polyglot
>
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Jo]

duplicating information across multiple objects.

I found that what works best is to have nodes on the side of the road to
represent the stops. These nodes have positional information and can carry
all the tags for the details.

If there is an actual elevated platform, it can be represented by a way or
an area, but I don't see any need to move the details tags from the node to
that area. Nor do I see a need to move them to a shelter area, if there is
one, or to a bench or a waste basket that has the typical colours of the
operator. For these ways / areas highway=platform / railway = platform is
enough. Additional tags can be wheelchair yes, tactile_paving=yes and maybe
height.

The platfrorms are just additional features that may be there, or not.

When I still had the idea that one day public_transport=platform /
stop_position would actually supersede highway=bus_stop / railway=tram_stop
/ station and so on, I started adding bus = yes to the pt=platform nodes.
Now I see less point into continuing to do so. The only advantage it has,
is that JOSM will automatcially assign platform roles to such nodes.

Nowadays, I'd say let's indeed drop the whole public_transport schema.
Somewhat radical, but a simple schema is better than a complex one.

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

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

[Jo]

A bus stop, a place where a bus halts to pick up and drop off passengers is
both real and current. Tying it to a geographic object can be done in
various ways, as we've shown over the past years.

I read the wiki a few times over the past years and then I started looking
for something that works, both for mapping the stops and for adding them to
the route relations, WITHOUT

On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 3:39 AM Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

> I think you might be referring to this proposal from Zverik last
> summer, which suggests stopping using
> public_transport=stop_position/platform/station, but keeps the
> relations:
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Refined_Public_Transport
>
> - =stop_position is not really needed for routing; doubles work for mappers
> =platform is ambiguous; use =bus_stop, highway=platform (if the bus
> stop has a physical platform) railway=platform etc
> = public_transport=station is not specific, use amenity=bus_station,
> railway=station etc).
>
> re: > "It's hard to ascertain precisely why PT was originally created"
>
> According to this comment, it started with imports, and a dispute
> between English mappers and a few Central European mappers (or just
> one?): back in 2010 there were 200,000 highway=bus_stop mapped beside
> the road in England, at the location of the bus stop sign. But there
> was data available in Switzerland that could be imported that had the
> node in the center of the highway, probably for bus operator purposes,
> and a mapper started importing these and changed the wiki to say this
> was better. There was a dispute about this. To resolve it, the
> proposal that was eventually approved created specific tags for
> stop_position (on the highway) which could use access tags like
> "bus=yes" to specify the vehicle and "platform" (for the bus stop),
> and a stop_area relation.
>
> This wasn't sufficient information to render bus stops differently
> than tram / light rail platforms, so the original tagging method
> remained more common up until now.
>
> This hasn't stopped some mappers  from claiming that there is a
> "version 2" of mapping for transit which should replace the "old"
> tags, and editing the wiki pages to put this view at the forefront,
> going so far as to suggest public_transport=platform and =station for
> ferry terminals and taxi stops, where this tagging is very rare.
>
> I've made to various wiki pages to describe the current situation. I'm
> also working on making specific wiki pages for tags like bus=yes (used
> for both access restrictions and to specify the type of public
> transport vehicle at a feature).
>
> Joseph
>
> On 7/30/19, Dave F via Tagging  wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > This is not a criticism of Joseph.
> >
> > This post confirms what I've been saying for the past year - PT tags add
> > nothing but confusion to OSM, which directly leads to errors.
> >
> > highway=bus_stop is a completely separate tag to any in the PT schema.
> > It was created long before the invention of the PT schema and is the
> > original & the most popular, accurate way to map a bus stop.
> >
> > The PT schema purely duplicates existing, well used, clearly defined
> > tags. It adds no extra detail or information.
> >
> > A platform is a raised physical object compared to the surrounding area
> > to aid vehicle boarding. Popular tags such as railway=platform,
> > tram=platform are used for such entities.
> > Public_transport=platform has been hijacked by PT to falsely represent a
> > bus stop as an imaginary area on a pavement. As defined in OSM's welcome
> > page: "OpenStreetMap is a place for mapping things that are both /real
> > and current/ ".
> >
> > It's hard to ascertain precisely why PT was originally created but it
> > appears to be that the existing tags weren't complete. However instead
> > of adding that missing data, somebody though it would be a great idea to
> > start from the very beginning with a completely new set of tags & try to
> > paper over the gaps. The irony is that, after a lot of discussion over
> > tag names & locations & quickly waning enthusiasm for adding them to the
> > database,  PT is *less* complete than the original data. What a waste of
> > time. It's a mess.
> >
> > Over on the transit forum the PT schema has become so convoluted even
> > those who helped create it are baffled. At least one is advocating its
> > removal.
> >
> > It's time for the PT schema to be redacted.
> >
> > DaveF
> >
> >
> >
> > On 29/07/2019 15:29, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> >> I read up on the rather exhausting history of public transport tagging.
> >>
> >> The strange thing is that the approved proposal which introduced
> >> public_transport=* and the current public_transport pages suggest
> >> using bus=yes only for public_transport=stop_position. In contrast,
> >> public_transport=platform doesn't have bus=yes added.
> >>
> >> Does this mean that tagging highway=bus_stop on the same node as
> >> public_transport=platform is the 

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

[Joseph Eisenberg]

I think you might be referring to this proposal from Zverik last
summer, which suggests stopping using
public_transport=stop_position/platform/station, but keeps the
relations:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Refined_Public_Transport

- =stop_position is not really needed for routing; doubles work for mappers
=platform is ambiguous; use =bus_stop, highway=platform (if the bus
stop has a physical platform) railway=platform etc
= public_transport=station is not specific, use amenity=bus_station,
railway=station etc).

re: > "It's hard to ascertain precisely why PT was originally created"

According to this comment, it started with imports, and a dispute
between English mappers and a few Central European mappers (or just
one?): back in 2010 there were 200,000 highway=bus_stop mapped beside
the road in England, at the location of the bus stop sign. But there
was data available in Switzerland that could be imported that had the
node in the center of the highway, probably for bus operator purposes,
and a mapper started importing these and changed the wiki to say this
was better. There was a dispute about this. To resolve it, the
proposal that was eventually approved created specific tags for
stop_position (on the highway) which could use access tags like
"bus=yes" to specify the vehicle and "platform" (for the bus stop),
and a stop_area relation.

This wasn't sufficient information to render bus stops differently
than tram / light rail platforms, so the original tagging method
remained more common up until now.

This hasn't stopped some mappers  from claiming that there is a
"version 2" of mapping for transit which should replace the "old"
tags, and editing the wiki pages to put this view at the forefront,
going so far as to suggest public_transport=platform and =station for
ferry terminals and taxi stops, where this tagging is very rare.

I've made to various wiki pages to describe the current situation. I'm
also working on making specific wiki pages for tags like bus=yes (used
for both access restrictions and to specify the type of public
transport vehicle at a feature).

Joseph

On 7/30/19, Dave F via Tagging  wrote:
> Hi
>
> This is not a criticism of Joseph.
>
> This post confirms what I've been saying for the past year - PT tags add
> nothing but confusion to OSM, which directly leads to errors.
>
> highway=bus_stop is a completely separate tag to any in the PT schema.
> It was created long before the invention of the PT schema and is the
> original & the most popular, accurate way to map a bus stop.
>
> The PT schema purely duplicates existing, well used, clearly defined
> tags. It adds no extra detail or information.
>
> A platform is a raised physical object compared to the surrounding area
> to aid vehicle boarding. Popular tags such as railway=platform,
> tram=platform are used for such entities.
> Public_transport=platform has been hijacked by PT to falsely represent a
> bus stop as an imaginary area on a pavement. As defined in OSM's welcome
> page: "OpenStreetMap is a place for mapping things that are both /real
> and current/ ".
>
> It's hard to ascertain precisely why PT was originally created but it
> appears to be that the existing tags weren't complete. However instead
> of adding that missing data, somebody though it would be a great idea to
> start from the very beginning with a completely new set of tags & try to
> paper over the gaps. The irony is that, after a lot of discussion over
> tag names & locations & quickly waning enthusiasm for adding them to the
> database,  PT is *less* complete than the original data. What a waste of
> time. It's a mess.
>
> Over on the transit forum the PT schema has become so convoluted even
> those who helped create it are baffled. At least one is advocating its
> removal.
>
> It's time for the PT schema to be redacted.
>
> DaveF
>
>
>
> On 29/07/2019 15:29, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
>> I read up on the rather exhausting history of public transport tagging.
>>
>> The strange thing is that the approved proposal which introduced
>> public_transport=* and the current public_transport pages suggest
>> using bus=yes only for public_transport=stop_position. In contrast,
>> public_transport=platform doesn't have bus=yes added.
>>
>> Does this mean that tagging highway=bus_stop on the same node as
>> public_transport=platform is the approved way to specify that a
>> certain "platform" is a bus stop?
>>
>> It certainly looks that way. Does this mean that tagging
>> public_transport=platform + highway=bus_stop was the tagging that was
>> intended by the proposal to specify bus stops, and
>> public_transport=platform + railway=platform for train platforms, etc?
>>
>> It appears that the proposal specifically said that the existing tags
>> like highway=bus_stop were not deprecated. Current usage confirms
>> this: in the past year just as many (or perhaps slightly more?)
>> highway=bus_stop have been added as a public_transport=platform -
>> about 

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

[Dave F via Tagging]

Hi

This is not a criticism of Joseph.

This post confirms what I've been saying for the past year - PT tags add 
nothing but confusion to OSM, which directly leads to errors.


highway=bus_stop is a completely separate tag to any in the PT schema. 
It was created long before the invention of the PT schema and is the 
original & the most popular, accurate way to map a bus stop.


The PT schema purely duplicates existing, well used, clearly defined 
tags. It adds no extra detail or information.


A platform is a raised physical object compared to the surrounding area 
to aid vehicle boarding. Popular tags such as railway=platform, 
tram=platform are used for such entities.
Public_transport=platform has been hijacked by PT to falsely represent a 
bus stop as an imaginary area on a pavement. As defined in OSM's welcome 
page: "OpenStreetMap is a place for mapping things that are both /real 
and current/ ".


It's hard to ascertain precisely why PT was originally created but it 
appears to be that the existing tags weren't complete. However instead 
of adding that missing data, somebody though it would be a great idea to 
start from the very beginning with a completely new set of tags & try to 
paper over the gaps. The irony is that, after a lot of discussion over 
tag names & locations & quickly waning enthusiasm for adding them to the 
database,  PT is *less* complete than the original data. What a waste of 
time. It's a mess.


Over on the transit forum the PT schema has become so convoluted even 
those who helped create it are baffled. At least one is advocating its 
removal.


It's time for the PT schema to be redacted.

DaveF



On 29/07/2019 15:29, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:

I read up on the rather exhausting history of public transport tagging.

The strange thing is that the approved proposal which introduced
public_transport=* and the current public_transport pages suggest
using bus=yes only for public_transport=stop_position. In contrast,
public_transport=platform doesn't have bus=yes added.

Does this mean that tagging highway=bus_stop on the same node as
public_transport=platform is the approved way to specify that a
certain "platform" is a bus stop?

It certainly looks that way. Does this mean that tagging
public_transport=platform + highway=bus_stop was the tagging that was
intended by the proposal to specify bus stops, and
public_transport=platform + railway=platform for train platforms, etc?

It appears that the proposal specifically said that the existing tags
like highway=bus_stop were not deprecated. Current usage confirms
this: in the past year just as many (or perhaps slightly more?)
highway=bus_stop have been added as a public_transport=platform -
about 350,000 each - though the latter tag also can be used for
railways, trams, etc.

Joseph

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

[Joseph Eisenberg]

I read up on the rather exhausting history of public transport tagging.

The strange thing is that the approved proposal which introduced
public_transport=* and the current public_transport pages suggest
using bus=yes only for public_transport=stop_position. In contrast,
public_transport=platform doesn't have bus=yes added.

Does this mean that tagging highway=bus_stop on the same node as
public_transport=platform is the approved way to specify that a
certain "platform" is a bus stop?

It certainly looks that way. Does this mean that tagging
public_transport=platform + highway=bus_stop was the tagging that was
intended by the proposal to specify bus stops, and
public_transport=platform + railway=platform for train platforms, etc?

It appears that the proposal specifically said that the existing tags
like highway=bus_stop were not deprecated. Current usage confirms
this: in the past year just as many (or perhaps slightly more?)
highway=bus_stop have been added as a public_transport=platform -
about 350,000 each - though the latter tag also can be used for
railways, trams, etc.

Joseph

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