I tend to add the waste_basket that clearly 'belongs' to the bus stop, the bench, the shelter, the ticker/departures screen in as well. Most of the time they have a style you don't see elsewhere. Never occurred to me to add toilets or flowers or pubs though.
But do we agree a stop_area relation is needed for each side of a street? and a stop_area_group to show that they belong together? Jo 2015-07-02 0:31 GMT+02:00 Janko Mihelić <[email protected]>: > To me it's logical to put all those ref, network and operator tags in the > stop_area relation, not on the nodes or ways. The relation is the only > element that describes the bus stop completely. If you only put the ref and > operator on the platform, the stop position is missing. > > But if mappers in a city agree that they don't need stop_area relations, > they can put ref and operator tags on platforms, or stop_areas. I think > this can be reasonably flexible, but only between networks, or countries. > > Also, putting waste_baskets, benches, flowers, toilets, cafes and other > things in the stop area relation is unnecessary. Who decides if a cafe is > near enough to be in a stop_area? What do they have to do with public > transport? Only the stop_position and platform are needed. But I'm not > going to remove those from a stop_area relation, they don't hurt. > > sri, 1. srp 2015. u 13:55 Jo <[email protected]> napisao je: > >> What I'm doing comes down to mapping the poles. stop_positions could be >> shared for stops that are exactly across one another. >> >> I guess there is no choice but to rewrite the script(s) in order to cope >> with all variations of possible ways to map. Or else simply give up on it >> and move on. Not sure which I will choose. >> >> It would be nicer if we were able to come up with a totally consistent >> version 3 of mapping PT, but what I see, is we're moving in different >> directions. What is logical to me, apparently isn't for the rest of the >> world. What I do know is that I'm not going to be spending the next 2 years >> to make sure all the stop_positions (50000 for a small country) are >> present. They're simply not important enough for that. I add them here and >> there and consistently for the terminal stops. >> >> What I want to focus on at the moment is to get all the itineraries in , >> the routes and their variations. To me that seems like a better use of my >> time. >> >> Polyglot >> >> 2015-07-01 11:59 GMT+02:00 Jo <[email protected]>: >> >>> I am the mapper. I use the processing to assist me, like a tool. I also >>> try to map them all in the same way for consistency. The problem is that >>> apparently there was still room for interpretation in the 'version 2' of >>> the public transport scheme. >>> >>> What I see happening in Germany is that information is duplicated >>> needlessly. Moving it to the stop_area relation would be a logical step, >>> but information doesn't cascade through like that in OSM. In Belgium every >>> stop has its own ref, and of course if you calculate a route_ref from the >>> schedules this will not always yield the same result for both sides of a >>> street. >>> >>> Jo >>> >>> >>> >>> 2015-07-01 11:43 GMT+02:00 Richard Mann < >>> [email protected]>: >>> >>>> Your processing needs to be able to cope with these situations, using >>>> the latlon of the features, if the relationships aren't explicit. Get the >>>> computer to do the work, not the mappers. >>>> >>>> Richard >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Jo <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> 2015-07-01 10:00 GMT+02:00 Éric Gillet <[email protected]>: >>>>> >>>>>> 2015-07-01 7:38 GMT+02:00 Jo <[email protected]>: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In retrospect public_transport=platform was a misnomer. Maybe we >>>>>>> should have used public_transport=pole. >>>>>>> >>>>>> A platform can be a pole, or a shelter, or a dock, or a boarding >>>>>> "platform" for a train... It is meant to abstract differences between >>>>>> different means of transport. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> That's why I tought I was doing all right putting the details of the >>>>> stop on those public_transport=platform mapped as nodes. When there is an >>>>> actual platform, I map it separately as a way or an area, which goes into >>>>> the stop_area relation. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Anyway, the attempt to clear up the distinction between mapping stops >>>>>>> next to the road and as a node on the road has failed utterly, now all >>>>>>> seems to be done twice, which is a total waste of time. >>>>>>> >>>>>> The stop_position is where the bus, train, etc. stop on their way, >>>>>> while the platform is where passengers will be waiting to board. Both >>>>>> features are distinct and serve different purposes in real life, so why >>>>>> not >>>>>> store both in OSM ? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I don't mind having both. I do mind putting extra tags like name, ref, >>>>> operator, network, route_ref, zone on the stop_position nodes. It's enough >>>>> to have that information once. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> My problem is that when I'm adding stops as nodes in Germany and put >>>>>>> the details on there, those nodes get cleared/removed. I can reinstate >>>>>>> them, but it won't stick, so it's futile to do so. >>>>>>> >>>>>> It seems to be more a problem with toxic mappers more than the PT >>>>>> scheme >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> They moved the details to the stop_position, which I don't consider >>>>> for processing. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> At some point I thought that starting to include the platform ways >>>>>>> to the background database would help, but that's not the case if the >>>>>>> details are mapped on the stop_position nodes. >>>>>>> >>>>>> In theory, "redundant" details on the same stop should be put in the >>>>>> stop_area relation in order to reduce redundancy. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> That only works if there is one stop_area relation per direction of >>>>> travel. At the moment the wiki states to use a stop_area relation for all >>>>> PT related stuff that is near to each other. I need to relate the platform >>>>> nodes to the nearby way, sometimes by means of a stop_position node, >>>>> sometimes with help of a stop_area relation. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The stop_area relations combine both directions, That's useless. I >>>>>>> don't know who abolished stop_area_group, But what good are these >>>>>>> stop_area >>>>>>> relations if they don't help to relate an individual platform with a >>>>>>> stop_position? >>>>>>> >>>>>> See above. >>>>>> >>>>>> Éric >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Talk-transit mailing list >>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Talk-transit mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Talk-transit mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit >> >
_______________________________________________ Talk-transit mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
