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 <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 at 13:52, Joseph Eisenberg > <[email protected]> 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 > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
