On 2 May 2011 05:44, Dominik Mahrer (Teddy) <te...@teddy.ch> wrote: > Hi Peter > > > On 05/01/2011 10:49 AM, Peter Miller wrote: > > Just to say that I have just set Stefan Bethke up as an admin. There are >> now two administrators, myself and Stefan which is much better. >> >> I would like to also say how impressed I am with the new public >> transport schema which is proving to be very useful for modeling the >> main railway stations in London. I have also been working on the OSM >> wiki over the past week providing more detail about this schema on more >> pages. Here are a few pages that I have pretty much finished. >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:public_transport%3Dstop_position >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:public_transport%3Dstop_area >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:public_transport%3Dplatform >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:public_transport%3Dstation >> > > Thanks for your work on the wiki!
No problem. I plan to keep going a while on the above. > > One question I do have is about how to tag the boundary of a station. > For some purposes it seems to be important to have a node representing > the station, and a node is also useful because it can be positioned over > the main concourse or at any other appropriate location as opposed to > being in the centre of the boundary which is often in the > tracks/platform area. This begs the question about how to tag the area > of the station. > On normal maps a stop_area should not be drawn. So there is another > possibility to draw the boundary (if alreay supported by renderers): > > public_transport=station > area=yes > > If you have a building this should be tagged with: > > public_transport=station > building=yes Thanks, but that doesn't answer how one avoids getting two station names rendered, one from the node positioned at exactly where one wants it and which can be used in route relations and another from the centre of the area? Take Paddington Station in London as an example. Here is the overarching >> stop_area for all the elements of public transport associated in some >> way with Paddington Station (this including the mainline station, two >> underground stations and a bunch of bus stops). >> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/204439 >> >> Here is the stop area for Paddington mainline station itself (note that >> there is a node with role 'station' and the outline of the station with >> the role 'building'). Incidentally I am also starting to add footways >> within the station to the relation with the role 'access'. >> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1562706 >> >> Here is the station node. Note the 'note' that reads "DO NOT delete as >> route relations cannot have the building (area) as a 'stop'." >> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/558489676 >> >> And here is the boundary of the station from which I removed the >> 'railway=station' tag and added a note that reads "please do not add a >> railway=station tag - there is already a node performing this function." >> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/8877521/history >> >> I am not 100% comfortable with this approach because without a >> 'railway=station' tag the area is rendered as any other building rather >> than as a station. However.. if one adds the 'railway=station' tag to >> the building outline then one gets another instance of railway station >> rendered on the map. I know that we shouldn't tag to suit the renderer - >> this is more a question about how we want to tag things unambiguously >> and what we want the map to look like and therefore what we want the >> rendered to do! >> > > What I would recommend in your examples: > > Add > type=public_transport > public_transport=stop_area > to all the relations. > I agree with you. Some of those stop areas are older and are not tagged correctly and I missed the type=public_transport off the new ones. > > In earlier days during the RFC of the proposal there was a > public_transport=stop_area_group > what exactly fitted your needs for your > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/204439 > During the discussion we removed this from the proposal and we saied one > should leave away such a relation as a whole. I personally still add such > relations and do not remove them. > > Have a look at the following example: > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1279034 > This is the stop_area_group relation containing ONLY other stop_areas. One > for railway and the other for the bus. > > The relations for the railway also includes park&ride and the stations > building (http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/82160292) > > The other realation for the bus stations contains a station tagged with > area=yes to show the outline of the bus station ( > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/83334745). > > A railway=station is not used anymore and has been replaced by > public_transport=station. Actually it does not get rendered completely, but > I think this is only a question of time until the renderers are updated. > Thanks for the above. The professional European transport model (transmodel) allows nested stop areas and these are used extensively in the UK bus model much of which is already loaded into OSM. I will continue to use hierarchical stop area (as you are doing). Overall, I see this new model a a very helpful step forward and one which should be widely adopted, however I don't see it as the 100% complete answer. I believe that we will need to continue discussing the finer points of how to model more complex interchanges so that they route well and also render well in many situations. > Hope I have answered all your questions. > > Thank you, Peter > Regards > Teddy > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-transit mailing list > Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit >
_______________________________________________ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
