On 2019-04-30 05:50, Dave F via Talk-transit wrote:
On 29/04/2019 19:39, Markus wrote:
On Mon, 29 Apr 2019 at 17:18, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org>
wrote:
Part of what seems to have started the PTv2 mess is that bus stops
were
sometimes mapped on the way and sometimes beside the way, and both
cases
were tagged the same. PTv2 tried to separate those into "platform"
and
"stop_position", to bring uniformity across modes.
It would have been a lot easier to just recommend placing stops beside
the road. :)
If there is a problem on the OSM database I believe sorting that
problem is beneficial rather than 'papering over the cracks' by adding
extra tags. It may seem quite laborious, but just as quick as adding
those tags.
I agree.
We need platforms beside the way so routers can get people to/from
the
stop on foot. This is a big deal because trains are long and can
usually be boarded along their entire length, unlike buses where a
node
often suffices.
OTOH, we need stop positions so routers can get people from stop to
stop
on the buses/trains.
Routers just need the platforms (the places beside the road) because
the journey begins and ends there.
Please clarify what you mean by 'platforms'? Many UK bus stops are
merely signs clamped to telegraph poles. In rural areas there may not
even be a pavement, let alone a raise platform. Please remember that
we should be mapping the physical world. PT schema should fit in with
what's actually there.
A platform is where people wait to board; if they stand at a pole
(typical for buses), then the pole is logically the platform. That's
easily distinguished from large platforms because it's a node rather
than a way/area.
Stop positions (on the road) are
irrelevant for routing. If someone, for whatever reasons, needs the
stop positions, they can be calculated (projection of the stop node or
centroid of the platform to the highway or railway way).
Wouldn't a stop position be easier to locate if it's a node on the
highway, rather than an imaginary, offset 'platform'?
Please show me a router which uses platforms as I'm struggling to see
the benefits atm.
I think the idea was that nobody _could_ build routers with the data we
had, which was inconsistently tagged between areas and sometimes even
between mappers in the same area.
If you're trying to construct a route that involves walking to a bus
stop, riding the bus to another stop, and then walking some more, then
you need a linkage connecting the bus route (using stop positions) with
the walkways (using platforms). I'm not saying that's the only way to
do it, but it's the only way that was proposed.
S
--
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
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
