Re: [Talk-transit] bus=yes opinion
> Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2020 23:54:02 +0800 > From: Michael Tsang > To: Public transport/transit/shared taxi related topics > > Subject: Re: [Talk-transit] bus=yes opinion > Message-ID: <2965693.77BygNnF6Z@debian> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > On Saturday, 11 July 2020 23:30:29 HKT Snusmumriken wrote: > > On Sat, 2020-07-11 at 02:33 -0300, Agustin Rissoli wrote: > > > What are your opinion of adding bus=yes along with > > > public_transport=platform + highway=bus_stop? > > > > In the presence of highway=bus_stop I think the bus_yes tag is > > totally unnecessary. > > > > > > ___ > > Talk-transit mailing list > > Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit > > I consider the following scenario: > > 1. There is no physical stop but it is a generally accepted place to board > and > alight buses. I map public_transport=platform and bus=yes but not > highway=bus_stop > > 2. There is a physical bus stop pole but there are no longer any buses > using > it. I only map highway=bus_stop but not bus=yes there. > > Michael > > -- > Sent from KMail > - > > -- > 1 It is still a stop, therefore highway=bus_stop should be used, in this case I add unsigned=yes 2 In this case, disused:highway=bus_stop must be used. Agustín > ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] bus=yes opinion
Ad thread) bus=yes is not needed if highway=bus_stop is present Also public_transport=platform is not needed anyway, like entire failed pt2 19 paź 2020, 17:54 od mikl...@gmail.com: > On Saturday, 11 July 2020 23:30:29 HKT Snusmumriken wrote: > >> On Sat, 2020-07-11 at 02:33 -0300, Agustin Rissoli wrote: >> > What are your opinion of adding bus=yes along with >> > public_transport=platform + highway=bus_stop? >> >> In the presence of highway=bus_stop I think the bus_yes tag is >> totally unnecessary. >> >> >> ___ >> Talk-transit mailing list >> Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit >> > > I consider the following scenario: > > 1. There is no physical stop but it is a generally accepted place to board > and > alight buses. I map public_transport=platform and bus=yes but not > highway=bus_stop > > 2. There is a physical bus stop pole but there are no longer any buses using > it. I only map highway=bus_stop but not bus=yes there. > > Michael > > -- > Sent from KMail > In my opinion:Ad 1) it is also highway=bus_stopAd 2) that would be disused:highway=bus_stop ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] bus=yes opinion
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=yes opinion
On Saturday, 11 July 2020 23:30:29 HKT Snusmumriken wrote: > On Sat, 2020-07-11 at 02:33 -0300, Agustin Rissoli wrote: > > What are your opinion of adding bus=yes along with > > public_transport=platform + highway=bus_stop? > > In the presence of highway=bus_stop I think the bus_yes tag is > totally unnecessary. > > > ___ > Talk-transit mailing list > Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit I consider the following scenario: 1. There is no physical stop but it is a generally accepted place to board and alight buses. I map public_transport=platform and bus=yes but not highway=bus_stop 2. There is a physical bus stop pole but there are no longer any buses using it. I only map highway=bus_stop but not bus=yes there. Michael -- Sent from KMail signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] bus=yes opinion
On Sat, 2020-07-11 at 02:33 -0300, Agustin Rissoli wrote: > What are your opinion of adding bus=yes along with > public_transport=platform + highway=bus_stop? In the presence of highway=bus_stop I think the bus_yes tag is totally unnecessary. ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] bus=yes opinion
It is useless but harm is minimal - just a pointless tag. As long as mapper is not removing actually used highway=bus_stop it should be OK. Jul 11, 2020, 07:33 by aguztin...@gmail.com: > 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
Re: [Talk-transit] bus=yes opinion
And I in turn consider public_transport tag family as adding nothing useful and encouraging pointless duplication. I would be happy to consider them as deprecated, but I am not sure is there a clear support for that. And I am certain that most of people would be against deprecating highway=bus_stop Introducing public_transport scheme was a mistake, but introducing it while keeping simpler one made no sense at all. Jul 11, 2020, 10:31 by ro...@daeneke.at: > If the highway=bus_stop tag is also being used, it seems quite redundant to > me. But I would be all for killing that old tag and only using the new p_t > scheme (which sadly was proposed as additional instead of the new norm) and > then it would be useful to have the mode=yes tags, as long as the platform is > not assigned to at least one route relation. As soon as one eg. bus route > contains the platform, the bus=yes is implied and hence redundant. But that > would just be my view. > > (The p_t scheme would need a new, forced version that fixes such required > double taggings, but that is a topic for another time.) > > KR > RobinD (emergency99) > >> Am 11.07.2020 um 07:35 schrieb Agustin Rissoli : >> >> >> 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 > ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] bus=yes opinion
Let's go back to 2012. An attempt was made to solve a 'problem' and the 'new' model for mapping public transport was proposed. Some people were mapping stops on the rail/highway, others were mapping them next to the highway. For rail, and especially if you have only a single OSM way to represent multiple tracks, it made sense to map them as a node on the OSM way. For bus stops however one wants to know on which side of the road the passengers have to wait, so there it makes most sense to map them as a node alongside the highway. The bright mind that created the new model was apparently more used to mapping railway. So a stop alongside the way supposedly didn't need a mode of transport. When I tried to adopt this new way of mapping stops, I thought, like many others that eventually public_transport=platform would replace highway=bus_stop. For it to be able to do that, information was missing though. So I asked on the mailing lists and the answer was to add the mode of transport to public_transport=platform as well. Over the course of 8 years the people responsible for rendering were dragging their feet, first it was technical issues, bus/tram/... was not in their postgresql tables, later it was simply unwillingness. Anyway, about a year ago, or maybe already 2 by now it became clear that public_transport=... will never replace highway=bus_stop, railway=tram_stop, etc. So, my conclusion is that the whole public_transport scheme has become moot. It even causes problems, because people are adding identical details like name, ref, route_ref, operator, network to both the platform and the stop_position and are adding both of them to the route relations, which makes maintenance harder. If it were me, I would just map the stop nodes next to the highway with highway=bus_stop and be done with it. If it serves as a tram stop as well, I would add railway=tram_stop to that node next to the highway. I've never mapped public_transport=stop_position very much. Except at the beginning and the end of the itinerary, as I want to split the way there anyway. Polyglot On Sat, Jul 11, 2020 at 7:34 AM 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=yes opinion
If the highway=bus_stop tag is also being used, it seems quite redundant to me. But I would be all for killing that old tag and only using the new p_t scheme (which sadly was proposed as additional instead of the new norm) and then it would be useful to have the mode=yes tags, as long as the platform is not assigned to at least one route relation. As soon as one eg. bus route contains the platform, the bus=yes is implied and hence redundant. But that would just be my view. (The p_t scheme would need a new, forced version that fixes such required double taggings, but that is a topic for another time.) KR RobinD (emergency99) > Am 11.07.2020 um 07:35 schrieb Agustin Rissoli : > > > 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
[Talk-transit] bus=yes opinion
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
