IMHO, if a stop_position exists but isn't in a relation, consumers can't
be sure which routes/platforms it applies to, and that means it's just
clutter rather than useful data.  Given how many of them seem to be
flat-out wrong, though, we definitely need to document it better--and
make maybe it optional so mappers aren't forced to add something that
they don't really understand. 

If there's a way/area for the platform, then IMHO one should not add a
separate node for the platform; that is redundant.  If you need a single
point for some purpose, you can just compute the centroid.  I don't see
what "stability" has to do with it; once it's mapped, it's not going to
change much over time unless the physical platform itself is changed,
and one shouldn't expect stability in that case.  One can tag either
just as easily too, so I don't understand that argument at all. 

When I map a building, I can make a node and put all the tags there, or
I can make an area and put all the tags there.  Nobody expects a a way
for the outline and a separate node inside it with all the tags--or more
likely, a conflicting set of tags because some mappers didn't notice the
redundancy.  Why should a platform be any different? 


On 2018-04-16 13:20, Jo wrote:

> I knew this was going to be hard. Anyway, I made sure that it's definitely 
> allowed to tag bus stops as platform nodes. Every few months I look at the 
> wiki and each time it changes. At present it says that if a stop_position 
> node is present for a bus stop, it has to be added to the route relations. I 
> definitely don't agree with that and I won't do that. The route relations I'm 
> creating only contain 1 object per stop. Having said that, I won't be 
> removing stop_position nodes or platform ways from route relations, if they 
> are already present. Unless this proposal passes somehow, then I will help 
> with the conversion. 
> My proposal does not say that it's not allowed or possible to map platforms 
> as ways or areas. 
> It only says that for stability of the data, it would be better to map all 
> the detail tags on 1 node and only add that node to the route relations. 
> If a platform is present, it's perfectly possible to tag it with 
> highway=platform or railway=platform 
> and optionally 
> tactile_paving=yes 
> wheelchair=yes/limited/no 
> Jo 
> 2018-04-16 19:17 GMT+02:00 Stephen Sprunk <>:
> On 2018-04-16 08:11, Philip Barnes wrote:
> On 16 April 2018 07:46:13 BST, Jo <> wrote:
> Anyway, you're right in that the main point of my proposal is to get
> people to add 1 object per stop to the route relations. 
> I think this is a good idea for bus routes as they are quite simple.
> There is a sign, the passengers wait thereabouts, the bus stops so the
> door is at this point and the passengers can then board, pay or show
> their pass to the driver. Making this too complicated will deter
> mappers from adding public transport.
> If mappers want to add additional information then they should be free
> to do so but it should not be compulsory.

To me, this is the crux of the debate.  If mappers have put in
additional data or detail that you don't care about, then you should
ignore it rather than remove it (or demand that they do so), because
some other consumer may want that additional data.  Ignoring data that
is present but not needed is always easier and more reliable than trying
to deduce data that is needed but not present.

If a consumer doesn't care about stop_position members, it's trivial to
ignore them.  If the current spec says they're mandatory, then propose
making them optional; I would support that.  I don't support prohibiting
or removing them.

If a consumer only wants a node for the platform but it's mapped as a
way/area, then it's trivial to detect that and compute the centroid.  I
don't support replacing existing ways/areas with nodes or prohibiting
new ways/areas in the future.  If the current spec says they must be
ways/areas, then propose making nodes allowed too; I thought that was
already the case, but if not, I would support fixing that.


Stephen Sprunk      "Those people who think they know everything
CCIE #3723         are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
K5SSS                                             --Isaac Asimov 

Stephen Sprunk      "Those people who think they know everything
CCIE #3723         are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
K5SSS                                             --Isaac Asimov
Talk-transit mailing list

Reply via email to