Re: [Talk-transit] [Talk-GB] Mapping train services in Great Britain

[Dave F via Talk-transit]

On 01/06/2021 19:37, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:


Why bother with OSM at all then? Just look at a Ordnance Survey map 
and use your sentience to find what you're looking for.




OSM is free.

OSM is not a database sink.

DaveF

___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

Re: [Talk-transit] [Talk-GB] Mapping train services in Great Britain

[Dave F via Talk-transit]

On 01/06/2021 18:32, Philip Barnes wrote:

On Tue, 2021-06-01 at 13:07 -0400, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:

On Tue, Jun 1, 2021, 12:38 Dave F via Talk-transit <
talk-transit@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

On 01/06/2021 16:11, Christopher Parker wrote:

On 6/1/2021 10:54 AM, Dave F via Talk-transit wrote:

What's wrong with consulting a timetable?

To consult a timetable you need to know what station to use.

Then map the stations!


So we've mapped the stations Windsor and Eton Central and Windsor and
Eton Riverside, now how do we know which station timetable to consult
to find out how to get to Paddington? Riverside is marginally closer to
Paddington as the bird flies.

Traveline https://www.traveline.info/

Uses OSM


Database or just tiles?
Many things look slightly offset in Traveline.

DaveF

___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

Re: [Talk-transit] [Talk-GB] Mapping train services in Great Britain

[Dave F via Talk-transit]

On 01/06/2021 18:07, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
On Tue, Jun 1, 2021, 12:38 Dave F via Talk-transit 
<mailto:talk-transit@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:


On 01/06/2021 16:11, Christopher Parker wrote:
>
> On 6/1/2021 10:54 AM, Dave F via Talk-transit wrote:
>> What's wrong with consulting a timetable?
>
> To consult a timetable you need to know what station to use.

Then map the stations!



So we've mapped the stations Windsor and Eton Central and Windsor and 
Eton Riverside, now how do we know which station timetable to consult 
to find out how to get to Paddington? Riverside is marginally closer 
to Paddington as the bird flies.





You use a 'timetable' https://www.nationalrail.co.uk/ a make a sentient 
decision based on what you discover.


You appear to assume OSM should contain all the data in the world and 
make you tea & toast each morning. It doesn't, & can't.


DaveF

___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

Re: [Talk-transit] [Talk-GB] Mapping train services in Great Britain

[Dave F via Talk-transit]

Which is why OSM has route relations. Michael's wanting to add services 
& timetables to route relations. The data is too transient & time 
consuming to maintain for OSM. Sort the basics out. Learn to walk before 
running.


DaveF

On 01/06/2021 15:59, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
Without route relations, OSM shows where you can get on the 
train/vehicle, but not where you can go


On Tue, Jun 1, 2021, 10:58 Dave F via Talk-transit 
<mailto:talk-transit@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:


What's wrong with consulting a timetable?

Maps show you where you can go, timetables tell you when .

DaveF

On 01/06/2021 01:18, Michael Tsang wrote:

> I think you are missing the point that GB is not a city.

> Cities are densly pack and urban transport systems reflect this. In
London tube trains simply stop at every station.

> This structure will not work when it comes to rural stations,
and what
we have works very well. It would not be efficient to stop every
trains
at stations which only have a few dozen passengers in a day.

Other European countries are doing it much better. The routes are
numbered. There are designated express services with stops only
in big cities. The rural stations have only local stopping
services which call at every stop en-route.

We don't even have a useful route map from train companies that
can work out which train I should take without consulting the
timetable.


___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org  <mailto:Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit  
<https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit>


___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
<https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit>


___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit


___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

Re: [Talk-transit] [Talk-GB] Mapping train services in Great Britain

[Dave F via Talk-transit]

What's wrong with consulting a timetable?

Maps show you where you can go, timetables tell you when .

DaveF

On 01/06/2021 01:18, Michael Tsang wrote:

> I think you are missing the point that GB is not a city.

> Cities are densly pack and urban transport systems reflect this. In
London tube trains simply stop at every station.

> This structure will not work when it comes to rural stations, and what
we have works very well. It would not be efficient to stop every trains
at stations which only have a few dozen passengers in a day.

Other European countries are doing it much better. The routes are 
numbered. There are designated express services with stops only in big 
cities. The rural stations have only local stopping services which 
call at every stop en-route.


We don't even have a useful route map from train companies that can 
work out which train I should take without consulting the timetable.



___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit


___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

Re: [Talk-transit] [Talk-GB] Mapping train services in Great Britain

[Dave F via Talk-transit]

For the last few years I've added/deleted & maintained Britain's railway 
stations. All National Rail stations (currently 2571) have the Station's 
3 digit CRS code (ref:crs=*). This is the public facing code which 
allows routing developers to link to NR webpages which provide more 
*accurate* detail than can be in the OSM database.


https://www.nationalrail.co.uk/stations/SFD/details.html
https://ojp.nationalrail.co.uk/service/ldbboard/dep/SFD

I took a brief look at railway NapTAN/ATCO codes. It appears some got 
confused between StopPoints/StopAreas and codes for the station itself & 
all its various entrances. A right pig's ear. I gave up.


DaveF


On 31/05/2021 23:14, 10992 via Talk-GB wrote:

And I would have thought that the best way forward is surely to ensure that bus 
stops / train stations etc are properly mapped and tagged 
(NaPTAN/ATCO/3-alpha/TIPLOC etc), so that they can be linked to the appropriate 
data for routing engines to use, rather than attempting to duplicate data in 
OSM.  For most purposes, as long as all stops are mapped, the route a train/bus 
takes is irrelevant (thought there may well be some cases where it is useful).  
It may well be that some open data that is available could facilitate automatic 
maintenance of route relations in OSM, but if it were to be so easily 
transferable, that would negate the point to an extent, since routing engines 
could do it themselves.

10992

‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Monday, 31 May 2021 22:54, Philip Barnes  wrote:


On Mon, 2021-05-31 at 22:18 +0100, Michael Tsang wrote:


On Monday, 31 May 2021 16:14:47 BST Roger Slevin wrote:


and one in which I agree with Tony, Mark and Peter in saying that
public
transport services and timetables don’t appear to me to have a
valid place
in OSM

We have already mapped the complete bus networks in certain cities.
In OSM
terms, a public transport route is defined as "the order where the
service
stops to carry passengers, and the path where it transverse on". It
does not
include the timetable data.
I have also mapped a lot of bus and train routes in different cities
as well,
and it is very useful for OSM to have bus and train routes. When I
travel to a
new city I use OsmAnd a lot to find which bus I need to take to go to
a certain
direction, and where it will stop.

I think you are missing the point that GB is not a city.

Cities are densly pack and urban transport systems reflect this. In
London tube trains simply stop at every station.

This structure will not work when it comes to rural stations, and what
we have works very well. It would not be efficient to stop every trains
at stations which only have a few dozen passengers in a day.


The problem with GB railways is that each departure serves completely
different
stops, which means, if we strictly follow the "one variant = one
relation"
model as in current PTv2 schema, we have to map each departure as
distinct
relations on the map, because each departure serves different stops,
which mean
they are different variants.

You also have to remember that the timetables and hence services are
seasonal to reflect different passenger demands.

Many of us have thought about train routes but concluded on a country
level they are too complex and require a huge amount of mainatainance.
The timetable changes every 6 months, and as a minimum needs to be
checked.

I started thinking about my local station, to the North trains can go
to Crewe, Chester or Manchester Piccadilly. To the south trains can go
to Shrewsbury, Birmingham International, Cardiff Central, Swansea,
Carmathen, Pembroke Dock, Milford Haven and Fishguard. That is all
before to start considering which of the dozens of stations each
service calls, or may call at if it is a request stop.

As other have said, this is not something that belongs in OSM.

If you need to work out how to get somewhere then the train companies
apps and websites work very well. If you want to include buses as well
the traveline is excellent.

Phil (trigpoint)

Talk-GB mailing list
talk...@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


___
Talk-GB mailing list
talk...@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

Re: [Talk-transit] [Talk-GB] Mapping train services in Great Britain

[Dave F via Talk-transit]

As others have said, this data doesn't really belong in OSM.
It's too transient, too complicated to maintain.

GB timetables are officially updated every 6 months, but services vary 
on an ad-hoc basis. This previous year being a good example. How 
detailed would your system be? Would you adjust it to the level of 
maintenance closures &  rail replacement services?


We don't even a valid database for buses. The Naptan import was poorly 
executed & even more poorly maintained. There are currently over 15000 
without highway=bus_stop tags.


The bus route relations are so poor Traveline/Travel West don't use them

Maybe it's best using your OSM time to improve & complete what is 
already in the OSM database.


DaveF

On 31/05/2021 22:18, Michael Tsang wrote:

On Monday, 31 May 2021 16:14:47 BST Roger Slevin wrote:

and one in which I agree with Tony, Mark and Peter in saying that public
transport services and timetables don’t appear to me to have a valid place
in OSM

We have already mapped the complete bus networks in certain cities. In OSM
terms, a public transport route is defined as "the order where the service
stops to carry passengers, and the path where it transverse on". It does not
include the timetable data.

I have also mapped a lot of bus and train routes in different cities as well,
and it is very useful for OSM to have bus and train routes. When I travel to a
new city I use OsmAnd a lot to find which bus I need to take to go to a certain
direction, and where it will stop.

The problem with GB railways is that each departure serves completely different
stops, which means, if we strictly follow the "one variant = one relation"
model as in current PTv2 schema, we have to map each departure as distinct
relations on the map, because each departure serves different stops, which mean
they are different variants.

Michael


___
Talk-GB mailing list
talk...@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

Re: [Talk-transit] bus=yes opinion

[Dave F via Talk-transit]

public_transport=platform and  highway=bus_stop are different schemas. 
Please don't confuse the two.
When mapping using the much more prevalent highway=bus_stop there is no 
requirement for bus=* as it's obviously explicit.


DaveF

On 11/07/2020 06:33, Agustin Rissoli wrote:
What are your opinion of adding bus=yes along with 
public_transport=platform + highway=bus_stop?
I can't find info on the wiki that supports this practice, I know it 
was introduced by iD, but I don't see where this has been discussed.
My question arises because there is only one user who is adding 
bus=yes (and train=yes on railway platforms, etc.), to all stops in 
Argentina, probably correcting the errors that iD marks.



Saludos, Agustín.


___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit


___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

Re: [Talk-transit] bus stop name

[Dave F via Talk-transit]

The whole point of route relations is to allow multiple routes to be 
added to an individual object.


On 17/07/2020 02:15, 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-transit wrote:
    In the USA bus stops (flag stops) are located for the most part at 
named intersections, that is at where the street

sign is.
   so you DO know where you are. but on the OSM standard map the bus 
stop tag depending on the
editor does not show the route number, can you have the route number 
on the tag ?

​​​the wiki on this seems to be written for a European standard.

___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit


___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

Re: [Talk-transit] Making bus lines more specific

[Dave F via Talk-transit]

On 28/04/2020 08:45, Robin Däneke wrote:

Hello everybody,

I have lately been thinking about somehow reworking (or giving a new push to) 
the current p_t:v2 scheme.
Especially for the fact, that, since it was first proposed and accepted, not a 
lot has changed in which tags are rendered, how certain things are hence mapped 
and the Wiki-Pages on the topic have also changed in the last years without any 
visible going through another proposal process.

When I started mapping in 2011, and first read the german and then the english 
p:t:v2 wiki pages, it was:
- highway=bus_stop is a legacy tag that should eventually be completely phased 
out


It is a current, valid tag that's more detailed, clear, precise & more 
popular than PTv2 equivalent.



- stop positions and platforms are to be both mapped


Platforms should only be mapped if there's a clear, raised section of 
pavement for boarding a bus/tram. In OSM we map the physical world.



and some other things I already forgot…
Now, iD has a rule in its verifyer, that requires highway=bus_stop on platform 
nodes. The point of the public_transport tags is, among other points, to 
replace less dedicated highway tags.


highway=bus_stop is far more "dedicated" than public_transport=platform 
which require further tags to clarify.



I think it would be time for a p_t:v2.5 proposal,


Oh dear.
PTv2 was sold as a complete schema, fully formed with no requirements 
for amendments, yet there are these frequent proposals to tweak.


PTv2 adds nothing but extra tags & confusion. It runs in parallel to a 
schema which has worked well since the OSMs inception. Time to drop it 
completely.


DaveF

___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

Re: [Talk-transit] Long bus routes

[Dave F via Talk-transit]

On 02/08/2019 14:35, Janko Mihelić wrote:

I think they should be mapped as relations with only stations in the relation.


How would you perform real-time tracking?

DaveF


___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme

[Dave F via Talk-transit]

...the logical object highway=bus_stop/railway=tram_stop cannot be
mapped on the same area as the physical object
highway=platform/railway=platform (as they use the same key).
1) highway=bus_stop is a physical object. In OSM we map physical 
objects. To clarify - What do you mean by 'logical'?


2) Why to they need to be "mapped on the same area"? They are separate 
entities. Objects close to each other can be easily found as OSM is 
geospatially aware.


DaveF

___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme

[Dave F via Talk-transit]

On 13/05/2019 19:01, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:

On Mon, 13 May 2019 at 11:49, Dave F via Talk-transit
 wrote:

If Philip really wants a router to tell him where the nearest
shelter (surely you can just look around you),

You're joking?!
No, I'm not. Another reason PT has got itself into such a mess is the 
mission-creep that's occurred since its inception: The desperation to 
collect ever increasingly extraneous items into the schema, such as 
Phillips.


There needs to be a 'back to basics' cull of tags & relation collections 
of tags. Ask what's required to transport a person from A (via C) to B.



exact locations of shelters,in particular of bus stop shelters, could be very 
useful for those with visual disability (e.g. severe shortsightedness).


And if they're mapped they can be found, but there's no reason to bind 
them into a PT relation.


DaveF

___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme

[Dave F via Talk-transit]

If separate signs.poles - double nodes
if single sign/poles - two tags on one node

DaveF


On 13/05/2019 16:02, Johnparis wrote:

If a platform is multimodal, highway=bus_stop fails, because the same node
requires (for example) railway=tram_stop



___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme

[Dave F via Talk-transit]

On 13/05/2019 16:36, Johnparis wrote:

the bus stop (platform) node allows for shelter=yes/no and bench=yes/no, so
it's not really necessary to separately map them and/or group them into the
stop area.


If you've the time, map them separately  - it makes the database more 
accurate, but I still fail to see why these items need to be collected 
together. If Philip really wants a router to tell him where the nearest 
shelter (surely you can just look around you), it is possible without 
relations as OSM has *always* been geospatially aware.


DaveF

___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme

[Dave F via Talk-transit]

I think this highlights another PT schema problem - expecting too much 
from a routing engine.


On 13/05/2019 16:29, Philip Barnes wrote:


I do, but there tend to be lots of bus stops and sometimes I want it to choose 
the one with the shelter if its only a short extra walk.

Phil (trigpoint)




___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme

[Dave F via Talk-transit]

On 13/05/2019 16:14, Johnparis wrote:

I don't have any particular problem with mapping an area (closed way) or a
way (line segment) as a platform,


Please, please only map a platform /if/ it's a physical structure. 
Imaginary meta-objects  don't work in OSM


DaveF

___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme

[Dave F via Talk-transit]

On 13/05/2019 16:14, Philip Barnes wrote:


I can see that when its raining I may want the router to direct me to a stop 
with a shelter rather than stand in the rain.
Surely you need to be given the bus stop which will take you to your 
destination? That /is/ the point of a router.


DaveF

___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme

[Dave F via Talk-transit]

On 13/05/2019 07:36, Tijmen Stam wrote:

On 13-05-19 00:14, Jo wrote:
I like to keep things simple, the best way to accomplish that, is by 
having a single object for each stop that holds all the details for 
its "lifetime". That's why I don't like the idea of 'upgrading from a 
node to a way/area or a relation.


I don't agree with you on that point. With that view we can't change 
things in OSM anymore to a more precise mapping.


A bus stop as a node to represent the sign/pole is /far/ more accurate 
than an arbitrary invisible mutli-noded polygon.


DaveF

___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme

[Dave F via Talk-transit]

On 12/05/2019 23:14, Jo wrote:

About the stop_area relations, they're not needed everywhere, but they
could be used to show what belongs together. Of course, that would mean all
the objects related to the stop at one side of the street, not both sides.


Why items "belong together"?
Does a router need to know there's a shelter, benches, litter bind etc?


DaveF

___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme

[Dave F via Talk-transit]

On 12/05/2019 19:55, Tijmen Stam wrote:
.


No, changing of tagging, not replication.
There is no need to map with highway=bus_stop anymore (save for 
rendering on osm_carto)


No. highway=bus_stop is fully relevant as the day it was first used. 
It's simple, clear, comprehensible meaning far out ways the supposedly 
"overwhelming" PT tagging which few mappers have adopted. This thread 
wouldn't have happened it is was popular. It appears dead in the water.


Show me how p_t=platform adds anything to the quality of the OSM 
database over highway=bus_stop.


DaveF

___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

[Talk-transit] "more then one platform in one location"

[Dave F via Talk-transit]

Hi

On the railway=platform wiki page there's a comment:

"If there are more then one platform in one location, a relation could 
be used to "bind" them together. See Approved Public Transport Schema 
 
for more information."



What does the "more then one platform in one location" mean? Are there 
examples?


Cheers
DaveF.
___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme

[Dave F via Talk-transit]

For reasons I've already stated I disagree with everything in this post, 
but this epitomises why the public transport schema concept was a 
complete cock-up:



I think it is suitable to go the way of unifying it as much as possible under 
the p_t-umbrella.


 * It wasn't to enable routers to design software
 * It wasn't to add anything new to the database
 * It wasn't to make it mapping easier.
 * It wasn't to simplify tagging (the PT equivalent of highway=bus_stop
   requires 100% more tags!)

It was purely to satiate the compulsive desire to compartmentalize, 
group obsessively into boxes. The jumbled up mess of PT's wiki pages 
show It failed to simplify matters; to the extent even those who were on 
board at the beginning are confused.


Think of all that wasted time which could have been spent on 
productively adding quality to the OSM database.


DaveF



___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme

[Dave F via Talk-transit]

On 08/05/2019 20:56, Tijmen Stam wrote:


I never understood the whole railway=platform discussion.
IHMO hw=bus_stop, hw=platform and rw=platform should die, and all be 
replaced by public_transport=platform


You fail to say why.

I have updated entire public transport concessions with almost all 
stops having a platform way or area. In places where I did make 
something _new_, I didn't include highway=bus_stop and deleted the old 
one,


Please clarify what you mean by the "old one"

under the "don't tag for the renderer" idea, and everything works fine 
on my preferred renderer (osmand)


That isn't the only rendering


DaveF

___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme

[Dave F via Talk-transit]

That you're discussing so many different iterations of the PT schema 
proves what a cock-up it is.


That you believe all the PT tags are valid proves you've never make the 
schema simpler.

You're even suggesting adding more!

highway=bus_stop is a valid, current well used tag more popular than any 
PT tag. It is here to stay.


>and the single pole on the roadside is being slowly abandoned due to 
security and barrier issues


Security? What doe that even mean? It's a pole with sign on it!

>because any other solution, as long as platforms are mixed nodes and 
ways, would make inconsistencies.


It's the PT tags which are inconsistent & unrepresentative, so require 
rescinding.



On 07/05/2019 14:09, DC Viennablog wrote:

I think someone in this discussion is confusing the idea of a new scheme with 
the current one.

As it stands, the highway=bus_stop tag is a legacy tag for a node. If the 
platform is a node, it can be put on there (for legacy sake, although the 
p_t:v2 scheme suggests to sunset that tag) but if the platform is not just 
conceptual (e.g a pole on the roadside) but has dimensions (and hence is mapped 
as a way/polygon) the tag shall be put on the other thing that is definitely a 
node: The stop_position on the road.

Because more and more platforms in public transport get built as extra 
features, and the single pole on the roadside is being slowly abandoned due to 
security and barrier issues without elevated platforms and so on, I set this, 
planned to be depricated tag, always onto the stop position, because any other 
solution, as long as platforms are mixed nodes and ways, would make 
inconsistencies.

But if we talk about a new scheme, then we could again use one unified tag like 
that, ideally  one that also encapsulates the mode of transport and also says 
“this is the waiting area,point / platform”. Like 
public_transport=bus_stop/tram_stop/train_stop (with railway=stop, statiom or 
halt becoming optional?)
Only problem: what if a bus and a tram stop at the same platform? Just a 
general tag public_transport=stop?

Or would that clutter the tagging to much?

KR
RobinD (emergency99)

Von: Snusmumriken 
Gesendet: Dienstag, 7. Mai 2019 13:19:07
An: Public transport/transit/shared taxi related topics
Betreff: Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme

On Mon, 2019-05-06 at 13:53 -0500, Stephen Sprunk wrote:

On 2019-05-03 12:09, Dave F via Talk-transit wrote:

On 30/04/2019 18:34, Stephen Sprunk wrote:

A platform is where people wait to board; if they stand at a
pole
(typical for buses), then the pole is logically the platform.

This reinforces my point about misappropriation of tags. A platform
is
a physical construction higher than the surrounding ground to allow
easier boarding.

It's a logical platform whether it physically exists or not.  It's
pretty well established that using a platform node for a mere pole
is valid.  People wait there to be picked up, regardless of the
actual surface type (which can change over time anyway).

I think you are mistaken here. The logical entity here is the 'bus
stop', what ever its physical manifestation. English is not my native
language but I don't think one would ever construct a sentence like
"Let's meet at the Main street platform" when you were meaning "Let's
meet at the Main street bus stop".

I don't think a logical platform makes any sense in the context of
public transport.


___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit



___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit


___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme

[Dave F via Talk-transit]

On 06/05/2019 19:53, Stephen Sprunk wrote:

On 2019-05-03 12:09, Dave F via Talk-transit wrote:


This reinforces my point about misappropriation of tags. A platform is
a physical construction higher than the surrounding ground to allow
easier boarding.


It's a logical platform whether it physically exists or not.


 A 'logical platform'?

From OSM's main welcome page:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/welcome
"OpenStreetMap is a place for mapping things that are both /real and 
current/"


"What it /doesn't/ include is... hypothetical features,"


  It's pretty well established that using a platform node for a mere 
pole is valid.


But you're mapping them as areas.
As bus stop tags are by far the more established, why not use that to 
map a."mere pole".


From the bus stop wiki page:
"A bus stop is a place where passengers can board or alight from a bus."
Which is what you're claiming platform areas are. As I said it's pure 
duplication.


  People wait there to be picked up, regardless of the actual surface 
type (which can change over time anyway).


Unsure why you believe surface is relevant, but as I said, your examples 
of platforms are imaginary, inaccurate & arbitrary.





A platform:
https://s0.geograph.org.uk/geophotos/04/76/30/4763016_2416f5ee.jpg

Not a platform:
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/38/90/a0/3890a0f451e1a6900d174b29125b3c80.jpg 



If (& I believe it's a big if), a separate tag is required to as you &
Markus suggest, one with a unique, non-confusing value should be used.

Many public_transport=platform are tagged on the same node as
highway=bus_stop. They have no raised construction Therefore they're
redundant - routing can use the bus stop tag for the "stop node beside
the
road" as Markus described it.:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/469760546#map=19/51.51026/-0.18630


I'd be fine with saying that highway=bus_stop implies 
public_transport=platform, except that some mappers put bus stops on 
the way instead of beside the way and argue with anyone who tries to 
fix them, so in those areas, separate nodes for the platform had to be 
added.


From the bus stop wiki page:
"The highway=bus_stop tag is widely used on a node off *to one side of 
the highway way* to identify the position where passengers wait for a 
bus beside the carriageway."


However, is it essential that highway=bus_stop is/isn't on a way? 
Routers should be able to adapt to both scenarios.




Ditto for railway=platform implying public_transport=platform


railway=platform implies no such thing. It represents a physical object, 
nothing more, nothing less.


From what I've seen public_transport=platform was conceived as purely a 
duplicating tag to 'collect things together'. I've yet to see a router 
that requires more than a stop position. Don't most just use 
railway=station?


From what I've observed the PT schema went into too much detail which 
will never be used.


, and it doesn't seem to have the same problem.  I'm not sure for 
other modes since I've never dealt with them.


If we could all agree on this, we'd just need to change the 
documentation--and go fix thousands of bus stops that are in the wrong 
place.


Great! That's much simpler than adding tens (hundreds?) of thousands of 
duplicating multi-noded polygons.




That's easily distinguished from large platforms because it's a node 
rather than a way/area.


Not really. To save time, contributors occasionally combine tags onto
a single object: litter_bins, shelters, benches *&* raised platforms
in the case of bus stops. I'm not saying it's the correct/best way to
map, but it happens.


It doesn't make a difference for routing.

If a platform is large enough that it matters for rendering, then 
someone needs to go back and draw the platform as an area.


If it's a physical object, then yes.

  Same as any other structure 


But your examples aren't structures. They're imaginary.




So, to be absolutely sure we're singing from the same hymn sheet, are
we agreed that 'public_transport=platform' tag to represent a place
where vehicles stop to allow passengers to alight, is redundant in PT
as another, existing, more prevalent tag - 'highway=bus_stop' can be
used instead?


Notice what you did there: the platform tag "represent[s] a place 
where vehicles stop".  That's the entire argument over bus stops in a 
nutshell, which led to the redundant tagging.




I refer you back to the bus stop wiki page.
___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme

[Dave F via Talk-transit]

On 04/05/2019 19:15, john whelan wrote:


Unfortunately people make notes often on paper.  So someone leading a
mapping group will refer to their notes when repeating the exercise.
Finding those notes and correcting them is not easy.

Experience is what you get when you don't get what you expected.


  Not sure of the relevance of that to the subject of this thread. That 
could occur in any OSM scenario.


DaveF

___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme

[Dave F via Talk-transit]

On 04/05/2019 16:01, John Whelan wrote:
So can the proposal build on existing highway=bus_stop? 


I've yet to hear a reason why.

On reason for this is a number of cites have imported their bus stops 
from Open Data which ensures completeness.  ie all the bus stops in 
the city are present and occasionally they are reimported to catch any 
new bus stops or removal of others.  Changing from bus stops means 
everyone who does this sort of import has to reconfigure their import 
system and doing that will be awkward and may lead to a bus stop being 
mapped twice.


*All* edits from a single node to a world wide mass import requires care 
& attention.It shouldn't prevent the database quality rom being 
improved. I don't equate change with being awkward


Also there are existing tutorials on how to map a bus stop.  Many will 
be local so finding them to correct them will be a major problem.


I don't understand. Tutorials are local, or do you mean bus stops? Local 
to what? All entities are locatable.

Please expand.

Cheers
DaveF

___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme

[Dave F via Talk-transit]

Hi Johan

Is there reason it can't use highway=bus_stop,& equivalents for trams 
etc, which were already in the database & more abundant than 'platform'?


DaveF

On 03/05/2019 21:48, Wiklund Johan wrote:

In response to:

Please show me a router which uses platforms as I'm struggling to see the 
benefits atm.

And:


This reinforces my point about misappropriation of tags. A platform is a 
physical construction higher than the surrounding ground to allow easier 
boarding.

A platform:
https://s0.geograph.org.uk/geophotos/04/76/30/4763016_2416f5ee.jpg

Not a platform:
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/38/90/a0/3890a0f451e1a6900d174b29125b3c80.jpg


We use public_transport=platform abundantly in routing with OTP, and it is a 
key component in specifying the origin of walk links. We use it as an area, or 
a way. We need these to make direct contact between our stops (separate 
database) and the foot-routing network of OSM.

I further see no problem in extending the usage of the platform (public_transport=platform) to any waiting area for 
public transport. To force correct word description would force one to use terms like "street_waiting_area" 
"dirt_pit", "ditch" or "sidewalk" which would only be hairsplitting. If the usage of the 
word platform is misappropriation, I think it is the wording in the scheme that is too narrowly defined, rather than 
the widespread usage being wrong.

However, don’t get me wrong. I don’t really care what it's called as long as 
there is an area which can represent where passengers wait, and to which public 
transport vehicles arrive. This is of course the needs of our own journey 
planner, and we have no stake in the wider public transport scheme of OSM. I 
just wanted to show that there are indeed routers which use the platforms, and 
have great emphasis on their usage.

In case you were wondering which router I'm talking about: https://en-tur.no/ 
(https://github.com/entur/opentripplanner)

Sincerely (and possibly missing a few points because I haven't been reading the 
whole discussion),

Johan Wiklund
Entur




-Original Message-
From: Dave F via Talk-transit 
Sent: fredag 3. mai 2019 19.09
To: Public transport/transit/shared taxi related topics 
; selfishseaho...@gmail.com
Cc: Dave F 
Subject: Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme

Hi

(This amalgamates replies to Markus's points in his last post.)

On 30/04/2019 18:34, Stephen Sprunk wrote:

A platform is where people wait to board; if they stand at a pole
(typical for buses), then the pole is logically the platform.

This reinforces my point about misappropriation of tags. A platform is a 
physical construction higher than the surrounding ground to allow easier 
boarding.

A platform:
https://s0.geograph.org.uk/geophotos/04/76/30/4763016_2416f5ee.jpg

Not a platform:
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/38/90/a0/3890a0f451e1a6900d174b29125b3c80.jpg

If (& I believe it's a big if), a separate tag is required to as you & Markus 
suggest, one with a unique, non-confusing value should be used.

Many public_transport=platform are tagged on the same node as highway=bus_stop. They have 
no raised construction Therefore they're redundant - routing can use the bus stop tag for 
the "stop node beside the road" as Markus described it.:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/469760546#map=19/51.51026/-0.18630



That's easily distinguished from large platforms because it's a node
rather than a way/area.

Not really. To save time, contributors occasionally combine tags onto a single 
object: litter_bins, shelters, benches *&* raised platforms in the case of bus 
stops. I'm not saying it's the correct/best way to map, but it happens.


I think the idea was that nobody _could_ build routers with the data
we had, which was inconsistently tagged between areas and sometimes
even between mappers in the same area.

This maybe true, but as I point out in my previous post, adding extra tags only masks the 
problems. The "inconsistencies" should be corrected.


If you're trying to construct a route that involves walking to a bus
stop, riding the bus to another stop, and then walking some more, then
you need a linkage connecting the bus route (using stop positions)
with the walkways (using platforms).  I'm not saying that's the only
way to do it, but it's the only way that was proposed.

Do you have an example as I'm unsure what you mean by 'walkways' and platforms 
are disconnected from the bus routes, as are bus stops, so, as I said above, PT 
can use bus stops.

Markus previously said "OsmAnd Is able to navigate with routes consisting only of 
highway=bus_stop beside the road."

So, to be absolutely sure we're singing from the same hymn sheet, are we agreed 
that 'public_transport=platform' tag to represent a place where vehicles stop 
to allow passengers to alight, is redundant in PT as anot

Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme

[Dave F via Talk-transit]

On 28/04/2019 17:13, DC Viennablog wrote:

...But in my opinion, as it stands, for bus or tram stops, these relations do 
not make that much sense. As any software should be able to find those 
connections between stops with the same name, the stop areas are quite 
redundent.


Agreed
Using a Vien example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7463438
As each stop has a unifying name tag each stop can be found & collected 
together.


Even when in a relation, routers still have to iterate each item to find 
if the bus stop is on the correct street


Note this is also an example of public_transport=platform being misused. 
There are no physical platforms, just a shelter with a bench.



For bigger train stations, with differently named bus stops around it, that all 
belong to it in some way, a relation can be useful, but that case is quite rare.

Disagree
There is no connection, other than approximate location. They're 
different modes of transport, different operators.
A passenger may wish to continue their journey using a bus stop hundreds 
of metres way, How far should this relation encompass?
Bus passengers alighting aren't guaranteed to use the train station, 
they may cross the road to get their hair cut.



  Usually the stations would have the same name. If I find the time, I might 
also write a tagging/relation sugesstion that would slightly unclutter the 
tagging, but as we know, there have been many such suggestions so far, and 
there is never a 100% consensus. But no harm in discussing it.

Agreed
It needs discussing as it's a bit of a mess right now.

Cheers
DaveF




Kind Regards
RobinD. (emergency99)

Von: Markus 
Gesendet: Sonntag, 28. April 2019 16:55:02
An: Public transport/transit/shared taxi related topics
Betreff: Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme

On Sun, 28 Apr 2019 at 16:29, Jarek Piórkowski  wrote:

Oh cool - with routing and time estimates and all?

Navigation while travelling doesn't seem to work yet (it says "public
transport navigation is currently in beta"), but it gives you a
preview of the route: walking route, where to get on and off the
vehicle, intermediate stops, estimated walking and driving time and
distance.

___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit



___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit


___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme

[Dave F via Talk-transit]

On 29/04/2019 16:22, Stephen Sprunk wrote:


Stop areas are supposed to link stop positions to platforms, so a 
router knows which platform you need to take a route that only stops 
on a particular track.  In most cases, this can be inferred by 
proximity, but in some it can't, particularly at very complex stations.


If there needs to be a 'link' (& I'm still not convinced it does), can 
it not be achieved with unifying tags on nodes/ways? Why does it require 
a relation?


Relations were devised to allow items which couldn't be achieved on 
nodes/ways alone (ie routes) not to collect things together. If it can 
be done without relations it makes tagging so much simpler & less prone 
to errors.


Cheers
DaveF

___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme

[Dave F via Talk-transit]

On 29/04/2019 19:39, Markus wrote:

On Mon, 29 Apr 2019 at 17:18, Stephen Sprunk  wrote:

Part of what seems to have started the PTv2 mess is that bus stops were
sometimes mapped on the way and sometimes beside the way, and both cases
were tagged the same.  PTv2 tried to separate those into "platform" and
"stop_position", to bring uniformity across modes.

It would have been a lot easier to just recommend placing stops beside
the road. :)


If there is a problem on the OSM database I believe sorting that problem 
is beneficial rather than 'papering over the cracks' by adding extra 
tags. It may seem quite laborious, but just as quick as adding those tags.






We need platforms beside the way so routers can get people to/from the
stop on foot.  This is a big deal because trains are long and can
usually be boarded along their entire length, unlike buses where a node
often suffices.

OTOH, we need stop positions so routers can get people from stop to stop
on the buses/trains.

Routers just need the platforms (the places beside the road) because
the journey begins and ends there.


Please clarify what you mean by 'platforms'? Many UK bus stops are 
merely signs clamped to telegraph poles. In rural areas there may not 
even be a pavement, let alone a raise platform. Please remember that we 
should be mapping the physical world. PT schema should fit in with 
what's actually there.



  Stop positions (on the road) are
irrelevant for routing. If someone, for whatever reasons, needs the
stop positions, they can be calculated (projection of the stop node or
centroid of the platform to the highway or railway way).


Wouldn't a stop position be easier to locate if it's a node on the 
highway, rather than an imaginary, offset 'platform'?


Please show me a router which uses platforms as I'm struggling to see 
the benefits atm.


Cheers
DaveF

___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme

[Dave F via Talk-transit]

Hello
General points:

Are Stop_Areas required?
What are they for?
Are they in use?/Who uses them?/Will they ever be used?*
If there is a purpose for them, what should they consist of? I've seen 
shops, bike racks, litter bins included. Surely they're irrelevant?


Remove public_transport=station/train=yes & 
public_transport=platform/train=yes from railways.
They are purely duplication of the existing, much used 
railway=station/railway=platform respectively. They provide no 
additional information. Duplication is wasted effort. It leads to 
confusion & errors.


The use of 'platform' seems to have been hi-jacked by PT to represent a 
stopping place instead of it's original true meaning of a physical 
raised area above road level to aid vehicle boarding. Is 
public_transport=platform required at all on bus stops? As with 
railways, use existing tags.


* I think these questions need to be asked of all PT tags. From what I 
can ascertain the various schemas were developed in great detail to look 
good on paper, but appear to have little relevance to real world usage. 
I think this is further borne out by PT tags not being widely implemented.



DaveF

On 26/04/2019 16:10, Markus wrote:

Hi all,

I've added, updated and corrected several dozen public transportation
routes in the past few years using the PTv2 scheme. As is the case
with most route relations, they often break (e.g., because the course
of a road or rails is modified, a new roundabout is built, a stop is
displaced or simply by accident). However, with all the stop_positions
and stop_areas, maintaining these routes and stops is very much
time-consuming.

There have been several ideas to simplify and improve public
transportation mapping (e.g. [1] or [2]), however they either faced
too much opposition or are inactive. Therefore I've worked out three
different drafts for an improved public transportation scheme and
would like your opinion. After that, i plan to write a full proposal
for the option that got the most support.

In order to better understand how I came up with the ideas below, I
have first listed the deficiencies of the current public transport
schemes:

Deficiencies of PTv1:

   * No separate route relation per direction and route variant.
   * Platforms at stations cannot be added to route relations, which
prevents a better routing.
   * Stops (highway=bus_stop/railway=tram_stop) are often placed on the
road or rail, which is not optimal for routing.

Deficiencies of PTv2:

   * public_transport=stop_position and public_transport=stop_area make
mapping and maintaining complicated and time-consuming. Besides,
public_transport=stop_position is unnecessary, as it can be calculated
from public_transport=platform (which provide a more exact routing).
   * Counter-intuitive public_transport=platform: its meaning depends
on whether used on way/area (where it means a platform) or on node
(where it means a waiting area w/o platform).
   * Not possible to add transport mode tags (e.g. bus=yes) on
public_transport=platform because they are also used to set access.

Now for the possible solutions:

   1. Sticking to PTv1 tags, but with separate route relations per
direction/variant and by placing stops at the point where passengers
wait. A stop with a platform get a railway/highway=platform way/area
and a railway=tram_stop/highway=bus_stop node. (Except at stations, a
stop_area relation is not required because the stop node is placed on
the platform.) -- Advantage: Widely used tags, least retagging
required. Disadvantage: A stop with a platform needs two elements (as
railway/highway=platform + railway=tram_stop/highway=bus_stop can't be
combined).

   2. Sticking to PTv2 tags, but abandoning
public_transport=stop_position and introducing a new transport_mode=*
tag. -- Advantage: Only one element per stop. Disadvantage: The rather
counter-intuitive public_transport=platform remains.

   3. Abolishing public_transport=stop_position and
public_transport=platform and introducing a new public_transport=stop
tag (node/way/area) for the waiting area at stops, which can be
combined with railway/highway=platform if the stop consists of a
platform. Besides, introducing a new transport_mode=* tag. --
Advantage: Only one element per stop, very flexible and clear.
Disadvantage: Much retagging required.

[1]: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Transport_modes_on_platforms_and_stations
[2]: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Refined_Public_Transport

Thanks in advance for your replies.

Best regards

Markus

___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit



___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit