> "only need one element even if there is a platform" See "One Feature, One OSM Element" - separate feature tags should not be added to the same database object, if at all possible.
This is particularly a problem with platforms, which can be mapped as nodes, lines or areas. That means a way could be a line or an area, so you need to add "area=yes" to avoid ambiguity. But bus stops, tram stops, trains stations and bus stations can only be a node or an area. This means that database users (esp using osm2pgsql) will treat these features as polygons when mapped as closed way. To avoid ambiguity, don't add bus_stop or tram_stop to a highway=platform or railway=platform line or area please. The platform is a physical feature, and still exists even if the bus or tram service is discontinued. The bus_stop or tram_stop node represents a place a tram stops or bus stops and where the passengers should wait to get on the vehicle, so changing it to an area isn't beneficial. I also consider "bus, tram and train stations could all be tagged alike" as a disadvantage since it would lead to ambiguity, like how to deal with a station object tagged =station with bus stops, tram stops and a railway platforms. It's better if mappers are aware which main feature they are tagging, since that's what will have to be handled by database users. Hence, your option 1. (public_transport=stop) advantages are both disadvantages in this view, which means option 3 (using the original tags like bus_stop, tram_stop) is the best. It also requires the fewest tags at most places - a bus stop almost always needs 1 tag, and these are by far the most common public transit features in the database. On 8/2/19, Markus <selfishseaho...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Friday, August 2, 2019, yo paseopor <yopaseo...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> The only negative point for public transport v2 scheme was the >> no-deprecation of the old scheme to avoid duplicities (surely was done >> this >> to don't uncomfort people) >> Salut i transport públic (Health and public_transport) >> yopaseopor >> > > IMHO the main problems are the unnecessary public_transport=stop_position, > which complicates mapping a lot, and the misnamed > public_transport=platform, which means waiting area (and may or may not > have platform), but was intended to also replace railway/highway=platform, > which means a real platform (a raised structure). > > I still see these solutions: > > 1. To rename public_transport=platform into public_transport=stop (or > public_transport=waiting_area) and to abandon > public_transport=stop_position as well as the PTv1 tags. This would have > the advantage that bus, tram and train stations could all be tagged alike, > that tram and bus stops would only need one element even if there is a > platform (because railway/highway=platform + public_transport=stop could be > combined) and that public_transport=stop_area were only needed at stations. > Besides, new transport modes could later be added easily. > > 2. Same as 1, but public_transport=platform is not renamed (only > public_transport=stop_position and PTv1 tags are abandoned). Advantages: > same as 1; disadvantage: the misnamed public_transport=platform remains. > > 3. To abandon PTv2 tags, but to stick to PTv2 routes and to map > highway=bus_stop/railway=tram_stop beside the road/rails ("Stockholm > scheme"). Disadvantages: the same that are the advantages of 1. > > It were nice if we could (finally) agree on one solution to solve the > current public transport mess. :) > > Regards > > Markus > _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging