field, than it would stay a
> „platform“-node for it‘s lifetime. Objective achieved.
>
> KR
> RobinD (emergency99)
> --
> *Von:* Jo
> *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 14. Mai 2019 14:37:39
> *An:* Public transport/transit/shared taxi related topic
Betreff: Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme
For maintenance and for the stability of the data it is, however, better to
keep the object that represents the stop, the same during its lifetime, instead
of migrating it from node to way objects.
We are perfectly well
For maintenance and for the stability of the data it is, however, better to
keep the object that represents the stop, the same during its lifetime,
instead of migrating it from node to way objects.
We are perfectly well capable of having a node to represent the stop with
highway=bus_stop and
On Tue, 14 May 2019 at 12:31, Dave F via Talk-transit
wrote:
>
> 1) highway=bus_stop is a physical object. In OSM we map physical
> objects. To clarify - What do you mean by 'logical'?
While stops (and stations, too) can be observed (PT vehicles stop
there), they aren't physical objects.
@openstreetmap.org
Cc: Dave F
Betreff: Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme
> ...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
...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'?
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
On Mon, 13 May 2019 at 17:39, Johnparis wrote:
>
> I agree that platforms should be mapped as ways only if they physically
> exist. What I'm saying is that I don't object if someone does map such an
> object, but the information from the transit agency should always be
> contained in a node,
On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 20:55, Tijmen Stam wrote:
>
> a "public_transport=platform" is not defined as being "platform" (raised
> good concrete flooring) but as "the place where people wait to board a
> bus/tram/train". Whatever form that is.
That's a contradiction of the PTv2 scheme: it says that
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?!
The entire OpenStreetMap could be waved away with the phrase "surely
you can just look around you". Why
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
___
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
in every form (except
multi-polygon relations)
The additional nodes make the confusing clutter!
KR
RobinD (emergency99)
Von: Johnparis
Gesendet: Montag, 13. Mai 2019 17:38:36
An: Public transport/transit/shared taxi related topics
Betreff: Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas
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)
I agree that platforms should be mapped as ways only if they physically
exist. What I'm saying is that I don't object if someone does map such an
object, but the information from the transit agency should always be
contained in a node, not a way, as Jo mentioned.
I usually place the node inside
) simpler, newer
scheme?
KR
RobinD (emergency99)
Von: Dave F via Talk-transit
Gesendet: Montag, 13. Mai 2019 17:10:21
An: talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
Cc: Dave F
Betreff: Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme
On 13/05/2019 07:36
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.
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 5:30 PM Philip Barnes wrote:
> On Monday, 13 May 2019, Dave F via Talk-transit wrote:
> >
> >
> > On
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
On Monday, 13 May 2019, Dave F via Talk-transit wrote:
>
>
> 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
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
On Monday, 13 May 2019, Dave F via Talk-transit wrote:
>
>
> 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
I don't have any particular problem with mapping an area (closed way) or a
way (line segment) as a platform, but I agree with Jo that the information
should be contained in a node. That node can be part of the way. From
experience, it complicates things quite a bit when you transfer the
Definitely not non-transit items.
GTFS defines the equivalent of a stop area. The Paris regional transit
agency largely reflects these as transfer points between lines of different
bus companies. It can also be useful to link a stop position to a platform,
which can be very useful when it's not
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
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
If a platform is multimodal, highway=bus_stop fails, because the same node
requires (for example) railway=tram_stop
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 4:56 PM Dave F via Talk-transit <
talk-transit@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> On 12/05/2019 19:55, Tijmen Stam wrote:
> .
> >
> > No, changing of tagging,
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
On Mon, 2019-05-13 at 08:47 -0400, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
> On Mon, 13 May 2019 at 03:50, Snusmumriken
> wrote:
> > On Sun, 2019-05-12 at 20:55 +0200, Tijmen Stam wrote:
> > > It is not uncommon for key/values to be misnomers in OSM.
> > > Clearest
> > > example is private-access ways being
On Mon, 13 May 2019 at 03:50, Snusmumriken
wrote:
> On Sun, 2019-05-12 at 20:55 +0200, Tijmen Stam wrote:
> > It is not uncommon for key/values to be misnomers in OSM. Clearest
> > example is private-access ways being tagged as highway=* (plus
> > access=no) which is a misnomer in British English
Indeed, that's were we don't seem to be able to agree.
Let's say all bus stops are mapped on nodes to get started.
Then a mapper notices there is a platform near to some of them. Those
platforms can simply be drawn, in addition, to the nodes that represent
such stops. No need to transfer from a
On Sun, 2019-05-12 at 20:55 +0200, Tijmen Stam wrote:
> a "public_transport=platform" is not defined as being "platform"
> (raised good concrete flooring) but as "the place where people wait
> to board a bus/tram/train". Whatever form that is.
>
> It is not uncommon for key/values to be misnomers
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
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.
So a node next to the highway per stop.
I started
On 09-05-19 23:03, Markus wrote:
On Tue, 7 May 2019 at 21:15, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
7c. From what I'm understand, this bus stop node does not have to be
connected to a pedestrian highway either, with routers presumably
jumping from the nearest highway?
Yes, this is what OsmAnd does.
8.
On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 18:06, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
>
> A requirement would be having one direction per relation, otherwise
> vehicles going in opposite directions might still be mapped to an
> incorrect stop_position if 2+ trip directions pass through a station.
Yes, this was the idea: PTv1
On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 09:57, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
> I can imagine calculating correct stop position being challenging in
> case of multi-lane bus stations like
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/37096072 (looks like
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Islington_TTC_Bus_Barns.jpg in
>
On Thu, 9 May 2019 at 17:04, Markus wrote:
> Could you please give some examples where the stop position can't be
> calculated from the waiting area? I'd also like to know for which use
> cases the stop positions are necessary.
I can imagine calculating correct stop position being challenging in
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
On Tue, 7 May 2019 at 21:15, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
>
> 7c. From what I'm understand, this bus stop node does not have to be
> connected to a pedestrian highway either, with routers presumably
> jumping from the nearest highway?
Yes, this is what OsmAnd does.
> 8. A stop_location (to use ptv2
On Wed, 8 May 2019 at 22:15, Tijmen Stam wrote:
>
> On 06-05-19 19:29, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> >
> > I'd love to see stop areas go away, or at least limited to instances
> > where the link between stop position and platform can't be deduced from
> > geometry. Heck, in most cases, the stop
done in a semi-mechanical edit.
>
> Then, maybe the renders would also hail this only available tag as
> something worth showing...
>
> KR
> RobinD. (emergency99)
> --
> *Von:* Jo
> *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 9. Mai 2019 20:22
> *An:* Publ
odes/ways exist could be done in a
semi-mechanical edit.
Then, maybe the renders would also hail this only available tag as something
worth showing...
KR
RobinD. (emergency99)
____________
Von: Jo
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 9. Mai 2019 20:22
An: Public transport/transit/shared t
I have been holding off to respond to this. Almost a decade ago I started
asking for public_transport=platform combined with bus=yes to be rendered,
so it would become possible to drop highway=bus_stop.
After all those years it has become obvious that there is no willingness to
do so. So it makes
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
On 06-05-19 19:29, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
On 2019-04-30 06:06, Dave F via Talk-transit wrote:
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
On 28-04-19 16:27, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
On Sun, 28 Apr 2019 at 10:04, Markus wrote:
Tram stops often have platforms (and bus stops sometimes too). For
such stops, two PTv1 elements are necessary because railway=tram_stop
can't be used on the same area (or way) as railway=platform (they
On 28-04-19 16:02, Markus wrote:
On Sat, 27 Apr 2019 at 14:30, Snusmumriken
wrote:
Somehow I think that it is too late to define one schema that would
rule the world. Too much has already been mapped for it to be redone.
But I might be wrong. I also share your observation that PTv2 is way
too
I've been generally ignoring this thread, but did spot the handy summary from
Jarek.
In particular:
> 7. For public transit routing, it appears that having highway_bus_stop
> nodes ("locations where people wait for buses") arranged in order in
> a
> relation is sufficient, per the comments
My impression is that this mess arises because bus stops are
uni-directional and independent from the opposite direction. So we're used
to having them as separate entities to the side of the road.
Whereas tram stops are often in a single location for both directions (or
close enough), so we want
As far as I understood it, there are no practical pedestrian routing
concerns with any of the currently used schemes for pedestrian+PT
routing/directions. If this is incorrect can someone provide a
specific example?
On Tue, 7 May 2019 at 16:18, john whelan wrote:
>
> So if we connect a bus_stop
So if we connect a bus_stop to a highway with a path would that address the
routing concerns? Or is that idea too simple?
Thanks John
On Tue, May 7, 2019, 3:53 PM Jarek Piórkowski, wrote:
> Sorry, crossed my wires while editing at one point:
>
> > 9a. Because we must retain hw=bus_stop per #3
Sorry, crossed my wires while editing at one point:
> 9a. Because we must retain hw=bus_stop per #3 and #5, any
> accommodation of these cases must either be initially of tags, or
> guidance on how to place highway=bus_stop tags
make that:
9a. Because we must retain hw=bus_stop per #3 and #5,
Hi all,
I wrote some point-form notes of the discussion so far for people to
refer or respond to. I asked questions in 7a, 7c, 8c, 10c, 11c, 13b,
14.
1. Majority of world's public transit is buses
2. Majority of world's bus stops are simple signs (or sometimes no
signs at all) and will never [1]
7 May 2019, 15:09 by emergenc...@outlook.com:
> 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)
>
p_t:v2 scheme was bad idea. highway=bus_stop is
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,
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
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, Steph
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
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
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
>
> .
>
> I don't understand. Tutorials are local, or do you mean bus stops? Local
> to what? All entities are locatable.
> Please expand.
>
> Cheers
> DaveF
>
Unfortunately people make notes often on paper. So someone leading a
mapping group will refer to their notes when repeating the
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
Cheers
DaveF
/Johan
-Original Message-
From: Dave F via Talk-transit
Sent: fredag 3. mai 2019 23.56
To: talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
Cc: Dave F
Subject: Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public
transportation scheme
Hi Johan
Is there reason it can't use highway=bus_stop,&
-Original Message-
From: Dave F via Talk-transit
Sent: fredag 3. mai 2019 23.56
To: talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
Cc: Dave F
Subject: Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme
Hi Johan
Is there reason it can't use highway=bus_stop,& equivalents for trams
cussion),
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
elated 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 bo
On 2019-04-30 05:50, Dave F via Talk-transit wrote:
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
reff: 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 currentl
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
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
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",
On 2019-04-28 09:04, Markus wrote:
On Sun, 28 Apr 2019 at 13:47, Dave F via Talk-transit
wrote:
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
On 2019-04-28 06:46, Dave F via Talk-transit wrote:
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?
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 wo
I gave it a shot, but I can't really think of a way to justify it. does
the original discussion explain it? some stops can have a large variety
of shops that technically are only accessible with a train ticket; and I
guess it could be slow for the renderer to calculate and some railway
stops
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
On Sun, 28 Apr 2019 at 10:04, Markus wrote:
> I've tested the bus routes from Stockholm in OsmAnd. They seem to work
> perfectly despite not having any public_transport=platform tags and
> public_transport=stop_position nodes.
Oh cool - with routing and time estimates and all?
> Tram stops
On Sun, 28 Apr 2019 at 13:47, Dave F via Talk-transit
wrote:
>
> 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
On Sat, 27 Apr 2019 at 14:30, Snusmumriken
wrote:
>
> Somehow I think that it is too late to define one schema that would
> rule the world. Too much has already been mapped for it to be redone.
> But I might be wrong. I also share your observation that PTv2 is way
> too complex.
In my opinion,
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
On Sat, 27 Apr 2019 at 10:35, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
> ... it might make sense to check what they absolutely need and
> what is a nice to have. Do we know of any other major consumers of
> public transit relations?
Responding to myself, I remembered that of course Maps.me also does
offline
Hi all,
I noticed that OsmAnd has recently introduced support for some public
transit routing: https://osmand.net/blog/guideline-pt . Has anyone
used it or is familiar with the implementation? I would guess it would
make them one of the bigger consumers of public transit relations in
OSM and it
On Fri, 2019-04-26 at 17:10 +0200, 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
26 Apr 2019, 17:10 by selfishseaho...@gmail.com:
> 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
Aun existen problemas al mapear elemento de transporte publico... markus
pregunta si se puede mejorar las etiquetas...
Abrazos,
Marco Antonio
On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 at 15:11, Markus wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've added, updated and corrected several dozen public transportation
> routes in the past
85 matches
Mail list logo
