Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
58 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

Joseph Eisenberg
I read up on the rather exhausting history of public transport tagging.

The strange thing is that the approved proposal which introduced
public_transport=* and the current public_transport pages suggest
using bus=yes only for public_transport=stop_position. In contrast,
public_transport=platform doesn't have bus=yes added.

Does this mean that tagging highway=bus_stop on the same node as
public_transport=platform is the approved way to specify that a
certain "platform" is a bus stop?

It certainly looks that way. Does this mean that tagging
public_transport=platform + highway=bus_stop was the tagging that was
intended by the proposal to specify bus stops, and
public_transport=platform + railway=platform for train platforms, etc?

It appears that the proposal specifically said that the existing tags
like highway=bus_stop were not deprecated. Current usage confirms
this: in the past year just as many (or perhaps slightly more?)
highway=bus_stop have been added as a public_transport=platform -
about 350,000 each - though the latter tag also can be used for
railways, trams, etc.

Joseph

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

Tagging mailing list
Hi

This is not a criticism of Joseph.

This post confirms what I've been saying for the past year - PT tags add nothing but confusion to OSM, which directly leads to errors.

highway=bus_stop is a completely separate tag to any in the PT schema. It was created long before the invention of the PT schema and is the original & the most popular, accurate way to map a bus stop.

The PT schema purely duplicates existing, well used, clearly defined tags. It adds no extra detail or information.

A platform is a raised physical object compared to the surrounding area to aid vehicle boarding. Popular tags such as railway=platform, tram=platform are used for such entities.
Public_transport=platform has been hijacked by PT to falsely represent a bus stop as an imaginary area on a pavement. As defined in OSM's welcome page: "OpenStreetMap is a place for mapping things that are both real and current ".

It's hard to ascertain precisely why PT was originally created but it appears to be that the existing tags weren't complete. However instead of adding that missing data, somebody though it would be a great idea to start from the very beginning with a completely new set of tags & try to paper over the gaps. The irony is that, after a lot of discussion over tag names & locations & quickly waning enthusiasm for adding them to the database,  PT is *less* complete than the original data. What a waste of time. It's a mess.

Over on the transit forum the PT schema has become so convoluted even those who helped create it are baffled. At least one is advocating its removal.

It's time for the PT schema to be redacted.

DaveF 

 

On 29/07/2019 15:29, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
I read up on the rather exhausting history of public transport tagging.

The strange thing is that the approved proposal which introduced
public_transport=* and the current public_transport pages suggest
using bus=yes only for public_transport=stop_position. In contrast,
public_transport=platform doesn't have bus=yes added.

Does this mean that tagging highway=bus_stop on the same node as
public_transport=platform is the approved way to specify that a
certain "platform" is a bus stop?

It certainly looks that way. Does this mean that tagging
public_transport=platform + highway=bus_stop was the tagging that was
intended by the proposal to specify bus stops, and
public_transport=platform + railway=platform for train platforms, etc?

It appears that the proposal specifically said that the existing tags
like highway=bus_stop were not deprecated. Current usage confirms
this: in the past year just as many (or perhaps slightly more?)
highway=bus_stop have been added as a public_transport=platform -
about 350,000 each - though the latter tag also can be used for
railways, trams, etc.

Joseph

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

Joseph Eisenberg
I think you might be referring to this proposal from Zverik last
summer, which suggests stopping using
public_transport=stop_position/platform/station, but keeps the
relations:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Refined_Public_Transport

- =stop_position is not really needed for routing; doubles work for mappers
=platform is ambiguous; use =bus_stop, highway=platform (if the bus
stop has a physical platform) railway=platform etc
= public_transport=station is not specific, use amenity=bus_station,
railway=station etc).

re: > "It's hard to ascertain precisely why PT was originally created"

According to this comment, it started with imports, and a dispute
between English mappers and a few Central European mappers (or just
one?): back in 2010 there were 200,000 highway=bus_stop mapped beside
the road in England, at the location of the bus stop sign. But there
was data available in Switzerland that could be imported that had the
node in the center of the highway, probably for bus operator purposes,
and a mapper started importing these and changed the wiki to say this
was better. There was a dispute about this. To resolve it, the
proposal that was eventually approved created specific tags for
stop_position (on the highway) which could use access tags like
"bus=yes" to specify the vehicle and "platform" (for the bus stop),
and a stop_area relation.

This wasn't sufficient information to render bus stops differently
than tram / light rail platforms, so the original tagging method
remained more common up until now.

This hasn't stopped some mappers  from claiming that there is a
"version 2" of mapping for transit which should replace the "old"
tags, and editing the wiki pages to put this view at the forefront,
going so far as to suggest public_transport=platform and =station for
ferry terminals and taxi stops, where this tagging is very rare.

I've made to various wiki pages to describe the current situation. I'm
also working on making specific wiki pages for tags like bus=yes (used
for both access restrictions and to specify the type of public
transport vehicle at a feature).

Joseph

On 7/30/19, Dave F via Tagging <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi
>
> This is not a criticism of Joseph.
>
> This post confirms what I've been saying for the past year - PT tags add
> nothing but confusion to OSM, which directly leads to errors.
>
> highway=bus_stop is a completely separate tag to any in the PT schema.
> It was created long before the invention of the PT schema and is the
> original & the most popular, accurate way to map a bus stop.
>
> The PT schema purely duplicates existing, well used, clearly defined
> tags. It adds no extra detail or information.
>
> A platform is a raised physical object compared to the surrounding area
> to aid vehicle boarding. Popular tags such as railway=platform,
> tram=platform are used for such entities.
> Public_transport=platform has been hijacked by PT to falsely represent a
> bus stop as an imaginary area on a pavement. As defined in OSM's welcome
> page: "OpenStreetMap is a place for mapping things that are both /real
> and current/ ".
>
> It's hard to ascertain precisely why PT was originally created but it
> appears to be that the existing tags weren't complete. However instead
> of adding that missing data, somebody though it would be a great idea to
> start from the very beginning with a completely new set of tags & try to
> paper over the gaps. The irony is that, after a lot of discussion over
> tag names & locations & quickly waning enthusiasm for adding them to the
> database,  PT is *less* complete than the original data. What a waste of
> time. It's a mess.
>
> Over on the transit forum the PT schema has become so convoluted even
> those who helped create it are baffled. At least one is advocating its
> removal.
>
> It's time for the PT schema to be redacted.
>
> DaveF
>
>
>
> On 29/07/2019 15:29, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
>> I read up on the rather exhausting history of public transport tagging.
>>
>> The strange thing is that the approved proposal which introduced
>> public_transport=* and the current public_transport pages suggest
>> using bus=yes only for public_transport=stop_position. In contrast,
>> public_transport=platform doesn't have bus=yes added.
>>
>> Does this mean that tagging highway=bus_stop on the same node as
>> public_transport=platform is the approved way to specify that a
>> certain "platform" is a bus stop?
>>
>> It certainly looks that way. Does this mean that tagging
>> public_transport=platform + highway=bus_stop was the tagging that was
>> intended by the proposal to specify bus stops, and
>> public_transport=platform + railway=platform for train platforms, etc?
>>
>> It appears that the proposal specifically said that the existing tags
>> like highway=bus_stop were not deprecated. Current usage confirms
>> this: in the past year just as many (or perhaps slightly more?)
>> highway=bus_stop have been added as a public_transport=platform -
>> about 350,000 each - though the latter tag also can be used for
>> railways, trams, etc.
>>
>> Joseph
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

Jo-2
A bus stop, a place where a bus halts to pick up and drop off passengers is both real and current. Tying it to a geographic object can be done in various ways, as we've shown over the past years.

I read the wiki a few times over the past years and then I started looking for something that works, both for mapping the stops and for adding them to the route relations, WITHOUT

On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 3:39 AM Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
I think you might be referring to this proposal from Zverik last
summer, which suggests stopping using
public_transport=stop_position/platform/station, but keeps the
relations:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Refined_Public_Transport

- =stop_position is not really needed for routing; doubles work for mappers
=platform is ambiguous; use =bus_stop, highway=platform (if the bus
stop has a physical platform) railway=platform etc
= public_transport=station is not specific, use amenity=bus_station,
railway=station etc).

re: > "It's hard to ascertain precisely why PT was originally created"

According to this comment, it started with imports, and a dispute
between English mappers and a few Central European mappers (or just
one?): back in 2010 there were 200,000 highway=bus_stop mapped beside
the road in England, at the location of the bus stop sign. But there
was data available in Switzerland that could be imported that had the
node in the center of the highway, probably for bus operator purposes,
and a mapper started importing these and changed the wiki to say this
was better. There was a dispute about this. To resolve it, the
proposal that was eventually approved created specific tags for
stop_position (on the highway) which could use access tags like
"bus=yes" to specify the vehicle and "platform" (for the bus stop),
and a stop_area relation.

This wasn't sufficient information to render bus stops differently
than tram / light rail platforms, so the original tagging method
remained more common up until now.

This hasn't stopped some mappers  from claiming that there is a
"version 2" of mapping for transit which should replace the "old"
tags, and editing the wiki pages to put this view at the forefront,
going so far as to suggest public_transport=platform and =station for
ferry terminals and taxi stops, where this tagging is very rare.

I've made to various wiki pages to describe the current situation. I'm
also working on making specific wiki pages for tags like bus=yes (used
for both access restrictions and to specify the type of public
transport vehicle at a feature).

Joseph

On 7/30/19, Dave F via Tagging <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hi
>
> This is not a criticism of Joseph.
>
> This post confirms what I've been saying for the past year - PT tags add
> nothing but confusion to OSM, which directly leads to errors.
>
> highway=bus_stop is a completely separate tag to any in the PT schema.
> It was created long before the invention of the PT schema and is the
> original & the most popular, accurate way to map a bus stop.
>
> The PT schema purely duplicates existing, well used, clearly defined
> tags. It adds no extra detail or information.
>
> A platform is a raised physical object compared to the surrounding area
> to aid vehicle boarding. Popular tags such as railway=platform,
> tram=platform are used for such entities.
> Public_transport=platform has been hijacked by PT to falsely represent a
> bus stop as an imaginary area on a pavement. As defined in OSM's welcome
> page: "OpenStreetMap is a place for mapping things that are both /real
> and current/ ".
>
> It's hard to ascertain precisely why PT was originally created but it
> appears to be that the existing tags weren't complete. However instead
> of adding that missing data, somebody though it would be a great idea to
> start from the very beginning with a completely new set of tags & try to
> paper over the gaps. The irony is that, after a lot of discussion over
> tag names & locations & quickly waning enthusiasm for adding them to the
> database,  PT is *less* complete than the original data. What a waste of
> time. It's a mess.
>
> Over on the transit forum the PT schema has become so convoluted even
> those who helped create it are baffled. At least one is advocating its
> removal.
>
> It's time for the PT schema to be redacted.
>
> DaveF
>
>
>
> On 29/07/2019 15:29, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
>> I read up on the rather exhausting history of public transport tagging.
>>
>> The strange thing is that the approved proposal which introduced
>> public_transport=* and the current public_transport pages suggest
>> using bus=yes only for public_transport=stop_position. In contrast,
>> public_transport=platform doesn't have bus=yes added.
>>
>> Does this mean that tagging highway=bus_stop on the same node as
>> public_transport=platform is the approved way to specify that a
>> certain "platform" is a bus stop?
>>
>> It certainly looks that way. Does this mean that tagging
>> public_transport=platform + highway=bus_stop was the tagging that was
>> intended by the proposal to specify bus stops, and
>> public_transport=platform + railway=platform for train platforms, etc?
>>
>> It appears that the proposal specifically said that the existing tags
>> like highway=bus_stop were not deprecated. Current usage confirms
>> this: in the past year just as many (or perhaps slightly more?)
>> highway=bus_stop have been added as a public_transport=platform -
>> about 350,000 each - though the latter tag also can be used for
>> railways, trams, etc.
>>
>> Joseph
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

Jo-2
duplicating information across multiple objects.

I found that what works best is to have nodes on the side of the road to represent the stops. These nodes have positional information and can carry all the tags for the details.

If there is an actual elevated platform, it can be represented by a way or an area, but I don't see any need to move the details tags from the node to that area. Nor do I see a need to move them to a shelter area, if there is one, or to a bench or a waste basket that has the typical colours of the operator. For these ways / areas highway=platform / railway = platform is enough. Additional tags can be wheelchair yes, tactile_paving=yes and maybe height.

The platfrorms are just additional features that may be there, or not.

When I still had the idea that one day public_transport=platform / stop_position would actually supersede highway=bus_stop / railway=tram_stop / station and so on, I started adding bus = yes to the pt=platform nodes. Now I see less point into continuing to do so. The only advantage it has, is that JOSM will automatcially assign platform roles to such nodes.

Nowadays, I'd say let's indeed drop the whole public_transport schema. Somewhat radical, but a simple schema is better than a complex one.

Polyglot



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

Jo-2
By the way, I don't think the 'schism' of some people/countries mapping the stops as nodes of/on the highway and others nodes/ways next to the highway comes from an import in Switzerland. I think it came from habits in mapping of railway infrastructure. At one point, we had a single way for multiple tracks, then we added more detail. Back then it made sense to have station nodes on those ways. But that is more like a model and it doesn't represent reality very well, once you want to start adding more detail, like the separate platforms in the stations.

Polyglot

On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 11:41 AM Jo <[hidden email]> wrote:
duplicating information across multiple objects.

I found that what works best is to have nodes on the side of the road to represent the stops. These nodes have positional information and can carry all the tags for the details.

If there is an actual elevated platform, it can be represented by a way or an area, but I don't see any need to move the details tags from the node to that area. Nor do I see a need to move them to a shelter area, if there is one, or to a bench or a waste basket that has the typical colours of the operator. For these ways / areas highway=platform / railway = platform is enough. Additional tags can be wheelchair yes, tactile_paving=yes and maybe height.

The platfrorms are just additional features that may be there, or not.

When I still had the idea that one day public_transport=platform / stop_position would actually supersede highway=bus_stop / railway=tram_stop / station and so on, I started adding bus = yes to the pt=platform nodes. Now I see less point into continuing to do so. The only advantage it has, is that JOSM will automatcially assign platform roles to such nodes.

Nowadays, I'd say let's indeed drop the whole public_transport schema. Somewhat radical, but a simple schema is better than a complex one.

Polyglot



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

dieterdreist

Am Di., 30. Juli 2019 um 11:47 Uhr schrieb Jo <[hidden email]>:
By the way, I don't think the 'schism' of some people/countries mapping the stops as nodes of/on the highway and others nodes/ways next to the highway comes from an import in Switzerland. I think it came from habits in mapping of railway infrastructure. At one point, we had a single way for multiple tracks, then we added more detail. Back then it made sense to have station nodes on those ways.


for me it was a new interpretation as well, that the dispute about bus stop nodes on the highway and nodes aside the highway was based in an import which "had the node in the center of the highway". It doesn't seem completely logical, because it would make an import more complicated, not less, if you had to add the node to a highway. This topic was discussed a lot, so it may be rather impossible from reading old threads how it came to the situation, from what I remember there were numerous proponents in both camps. and it doesn't really matter, because we are a step further and have more competing alternatives now ;-)

WRT stations, there were a lot of variations out there in the early days, some people adding the railway=station tag on the main station building or a node within the building, others as part of a rail, again others near the centroid of the rails in the station but not part of a rail and some places even had nodes with railway=station on every rail in the station. This mess was structured by inventing stop positions, some stations have been mapped as polygons, and generally by agreeing to not use more than one railway=station per station.

Back to your main question: was pt intended to replace the legacy tags, e.g. bus_stop?
Maybe, but it doesn't really matter what it was intended for, almost 10 years ago. Let's document what we have now. The standing of tags derives mainly from their usage in the map, and much less from voting in the wiki (because a deprecation is only about the voting outcome, it isn't about meaning, as is a proposal).
From my reading, we now have 2 de-facto tags (tag/combination) for bus_stops, with the legacy tag still (and maybe forever) dominating the ptv2 usage (for bus stops).

Cheers,
Martin

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

Joseph Eisenberg
I got the information about the origin of the dispute about
highway=bus_stop next to or on the way from this page:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:highway%3Dbus_stop#Contradictions_in_the_wiki

"In the early days of OSM, the bus stops were mapped beside the street
simply because the poles are beside the street. ... A couple of
software developers adapted this in several imports ....
At that point, X came around with the idea to import data from
professional sources ... Transmodel). ... After some imports with the
shifted model, the data was quite messed, because highway=bus_stop got
ambigous for either the pole beside the street or a technical datum
from Transmodel on the street.
... X put a lot of time in writing wiki pages. In the end, the wiki
was less ... in line with the majority of the exisiting data and
software tools. ... To stop worsening the wiki, the 2010 proposal was
organized. Of course, X was involved in the proposal ...
This ended up with a proposal that is even more complex ... ,  simply
because it is intentionally vague. But at least it contains a way to
make the people passionate on On-Street-Stops happy by using their
specific tagging. ..."

I don't know if this is a fair assessment of the history, but it does
suggest that the problem with that imported data from some sources had
the nodes on the highway.

It does sound like everyone agrees on the history that some mappers
wanted to move highway=bus_stop to the highway way, but most wanted it
besides the way. So public_transport=stop_position was created, plus
bus=yes and train=yes to say what sort of vehicle stops there  - but
then there was also a new tag public_transport=platform, so now the
proposal suggested adding 2 points with at least 2 main feature tags,
plus name / operator / ref etc, for each place a bus stops.

And later, people who wanted to deprecate highway=bus_stop and
railway=platform realized that public_transport=platform isn't a full
replacement, so they recommended adding bus=yes or train=yes etc to
each public_transport=platform feature, which leads to 3 tags for each
one.

I still haven't seen any benefit in adding public_transport=platform
to highway=bus_stop or highway=platform or railway=platform features,
and it doesn't look like the =stop_position tag is needed for routers
either, so all 3 of the main public_transport tags (except perhaps the
stop_area relation?) are rarely helpful.

Joseph

On 7/30/19, Martin Koppenhoefer <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Am Di., 30. Juli 2019 um 11:47 Uhr schrieb Jo <[hidden email]>:
>
>> By the way, I don't think the 'schism' of some people/countries mapping
>> the stops as nodes of/on the highway and others nodes/ways next to the
>> highway comes from an import in Switzerland. I think it came from habits
>> in
>> mapping of railway infrastructure. At one point, we had a single way for
>> multiple tracks, then we added more detail. Back then it made sense to
>> have
>> station nodes on those ways.
>>
>
>
> for me it was a new interpretation as well, that the dispute about bus stop
> nodes on the highway and nodes aside the highway was based in an import
> which "had the node in the center of the highway". It doesn't seem
> completely logical, because it would make an import more complicated, not
> less, if you had to add the node to a highway.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

Markus-5
Hi Joseph

On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 at 15:59, Joseph Eisenberg
<[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I still haven't seen any benefit in adding public_transport=platform
> to highway=bus_stop or highway=platform or railway=platform features,
> and it doesn't look like the =stop_position tag is needed for routers
> either, so all 3 of the main public_transport tags (except perhaps the
> stop_area relation?) are rarely helpful.

I agree, and it seems that most people that took part in this long
discussion [1] i initiated in April about improving public transport
mapping agreed too.

[1]: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-transit/2019-April/002052.html

While highway=bus_stop works in most simpler cases, it doesn't work
very well for bus stations. For example, consider this simplified map
of the postbus station in Bern. [2]

[2]: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Postautostation_Bern.svg

It consists of seven platforms, numbered 1–7, and a mere pole on the
sidewalk with the number 8. As highway=bus_stop and highway=platform
both use the the highway=* key and thus can't be combined, for every
platform i would need to map a highway=platform and a highway=bus_stop
object. But which one should get the ref=*? Both? And which one should
be added to the route relation? Usually highway=bus_stop is added to
the route relation, but for trains, it is the platform.

A possible solution of this problem were to invent a new tag for
stops, which doesn't use the highway=* or railway=* key and thus can
be combined with highway/railway=platform (e.g. public_transport=stop;
or, alternatively, a new tag for platforms). However, i haven't got
any feedback on that idea, so i don't know whether the community would
accept such a change in tagging.

Regards

Markus

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

yo paseopor
please: NO MORE TAGS
Either... can we mix all the tags of all the versions of Public transport into a UNIQUE scheme for ALL kinds of transports, tagging it at the same way with the same name: from electric autonomous buses to new Uber's helicopters?
A scheme has to be scalable. Can we define that? Can we design that?
-Basic parts
-Basic tags
-Basic values

And then... some kind of automated conversion of tags done by local communities, with specific instructions at the wiki. Also tag as deprecated all the old mixed stuff.

What do you think?
Salut i mapes (health and maps)
yopaseopor


On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 10:37 AM Markus <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Joseph

On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 at 15:59, Joseph Eisenberg
<[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I still haven't seen any benefit in adding public_transport=platform
> to highway=bus_stop or highway=platform or railway=platform features,
> and it doesn't look like the =stop_position tag is needed for routers
> either, so all 3 of the main public_transport tags (except perhaps the
> stop_area relation?) are rarely helpful.

I agree, and it seems that most people that took part in this long
discussion [1] i initiated in April about improving public transport
mapping agreed too.

[1]: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-transit/2019-April/002052.html

While highway=bus_stop works in most simpler cases, it doesn't work
very well for bus stations. For example, consider this simplified map
of the postbus station in Bern. [2]

[2]: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Postautostation_Bern.svg

It consists of seven platforms, numbered 1–7, and a mere pole on the
sidewalk with the number 8. As highway=bus_stop and highway=platform
both use the the highway=* key and thus can't be combined, for every
platform i would need to map a highway=platform and a highway=bus_stop
object. But which one should get the ref=*? Both? And which one should
be added to the route relation? Usually highway=bus_stop is added to
the route relation, but for trains, it is the platform.

A possible solution of this problem were to invent a new tag for
stops, which doesn't use the highway=* or railway=* key and thus can
be combined with highway/railway=platform (e.g. public_transport=stop;
or, alternatively, a new tag for platforms). However, i haven't got
any feedback on that idea, so i don't know whether the community would
accept such a change in tagging.

Regards

Markus

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

Joseph Eisenberg
Agreed, there are enough tags for public transport already. I don't
think anything new is needed.

If there is a platform where buses stop, then there's a bus stop, and
a platform. The platform is a physical feature, and I believe it would
still be a highway=platform even if the bus service were discontinued.

The bus stop represents that public buses actually stop at the
location to pick up or drop off passengers.

The ref= should go on whatever of the two features that it actual
refers to: if it's on the bus stop sign or pole, it probably
represents the bus stop, but it might actually refer to the physical
platform and each different bus route that stops there might have a
different ref=* for that bus stop.

Perhaps sometimes you'll have to add the ref=* to both the stop and
the platform, but that's ok. The public_transport=stop_position +
=platform + stop_area idea often leads to putting the same ref on 3
different objects.

In all other situations (rail platforms, regular bus stops without an
elevated platform, tram stops etc), the Refined_Public_Transport
proposal is clearly simpler than using public_transport=* tags, so it
looks like a good option.

Joseph

On 7/31/19, yo paseopor <[hidden email]> wrote:

> please: NO MORE TAGS
> Either... can we mix all the tags of all the versions of Public transport
> into a UNIQUE scheme for ALL kinds of transports, tagging it at the same
> way with the same name: from electric autonomous buses to new Uber's
> helicopters?
> A scheme has to be scalable. Can we define that? Can we design that?
> -Basic parts
> -Basic tags
> -Basic values
>
> And then... some kind of automated conversion of tags done by local
> communities, with specific instructions at the wiki. Also tag as deprecated
> all the old mixed stuff.
>
> What do you think?
> Salut i mapes (health and maps)
> yopaseopor
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 10:37 AM Markus <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Joseph
>>
>> On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 at 15:59, Joseph Eisenberg
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >
>> > I still haven't seen any benefit in adding public_transport=platform
>> > to highway=bus_stop or highway=platform or railway=platform features,
>> > and it doesn't look like the =stop_position tag is needed for routers
>> > either, so all 3 of the main public_transport tags (except perhaps the
>> > stop_area relation?) are rarely helpful.
>>
>> I agree, and it seems that most people that took part in this long
>> discussion [1] i initiated in April about improving public transport
>> mapping agreed too.
>>
>> [1]:
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-transit/2019-April/002052.html
>>
>> While highway=bus_stop works in most simpler cases, it doesn't work
>> very well for bus stations. For example, consider this simplified map
>> of the postbus station in Bern. [2]
>>
>> [2]: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Postautostation_Bern.svg
>>
>> It consists of seven platforms, numbered 1–7, and a mere pole on the
>> sidewalk with the number 8. As highway=bus_stop and highway=platform
>> both use the the highway=* key and thus can't be combined, for every
>> platform i would need to map a highway=platform and a highway=bus_stop
>> object. But which one should get the ref=*? Both? And which one should
>> be added to the route relation? Usually highway=bus_stop is added to
>> the route relation, but for trains, it is the platform.
>>
>> A possible solution of this problem were to invent a new tag for
>> stops, which doesn't use the highway=* or railway=* key and thus can
>> be combined with highway/railway=platform (e.g. public_transport=stop;
>> or, alternatively, a new tag for platforms). However, i haven't got
>> any feedback on that idea, so i don't know whether the community would
>> accept such a change in tagging.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Markus
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

Paul Allen
On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 at 12:52, Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
Agreed, there are enough tags for public transport already. I don't
think anything new is needed.

There's something I haven't found a way of mapping.  That's a bus stop where there's a bay
inlet into the pavement (aka sidewalk, aka causeway).  If it served a different purpose and
had different road markings, it could be a lay-by (aka rest area) or a parking bay.  But it's a
bus stop where the bus does not obstruct the flow of traffic.  There are four of those in
my town, that I can think of (there may be others I've missed).

Yes, I could use area:highway or add area=yes to a closed way, but those don't seem to render
on a popular, well-known carto intended for mappers to check their work for anything but
pedestrian ways.

Is there a way of doing it that I've missed?  If not, could we have one?


--
Paul


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

Jo-2
bus_bay = right | left | both (  https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/485293336  ) 

For me the object that represents the bus stop, is always a simple node. I don't see a problem for doing that in bus stations as well.

If there are actual platforms, whether in a bus station or somewhere along a way, it can be tagged:


or


for trams.

on a way.

These ways don't get the ref, name, route_ref, zone, local_ref, operator, network, and so on, those go on the node that represents the bus stop. Only that node needs to be added to the route relations. It doesn't get any simpler than that.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/576656712  (example of a bus stop served by 3 different operators near Brussels, I only put public_transport=platform, bus=yes because for a few years that seemed like the right thing to do. Today I wouldn't mind removing those 2 tags once again.) 

Those platform ways could get:

tactile_paving=yes
wheelchair=yes
height=

So there is no real conflict between highway=bus_stop or railway=tram_stop on a node 

and

highway=platform or railway=platform on a way or an area.

Polyglot

On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 2:13 PM Paul Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 at 12:52, Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
Agreed, there are enough tags for public transport already. I don't
think anything new is needed.

There's something I haven't found a way of mapping.  That's a bus stop where there's a bay
inlet into the pavement (aka sidewalk, aka causeway).  If it served a different purpose and
had different road markings, it could be a lay-by (aka rest area) or a parking bay.  But it's a
bus stop where the bus does not obstruct the flow of traffic.  There are four of those in
my town, that I can think of (there may be others I've missed).

Yes, I could use area:highway or add area=yes to a closed way, but those don't seem to render
on a popular, well-known carto intended for mappers to check their work for anything but
pedestrian ways.

Is there a way of doing it that I've missed?  If not, could we have one?


--
Paul

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

Markus-5
In reply to this post by Joseph Eisenberg
On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 at 13:52, Joseph Eisenberg
<[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Agreed, there are enough tags for public transport already. I don't
> think anything new is needed.

My idea was actually to replace the misnamed public_transport=platform
with public_transport=stop and to abandon highway=bus_stop and
railway=tram_stop as well as public_transport=stop_position. All in
all that's not more tags, but three less.

Besides, as there were only one element per stop (even if the stop is
a platform), public_transport=stop_area would only be necessary at
stations.

> If there is a platform where buses stop, then there's a bus stop, and
> a platform. The platform is a physical feature, and I believe it would
> still be a highway=platform even if the bus service were discontinued.

I agree, it remains a highway=platform even if it's not operated
anymore. But when it's operated, the platform actually represents a
bus stop.

> [...]
>
> The ref= should go on whatever of the two features that it actual
> refers to: if it's on the bus stop sign or pole, it probably
> represents the bus stop, but it might actually refer to the physical
> platform and each different bus route that stops there might have a
> different ref=* for that bus stop.

The number in my example refers to the place where people wait for the
buses, for numbers 1–7 this is the platform and for number 8 it is the
place on the sidewalk. So, where should i put ref=1 ... ref=7
according to you? On highway=platform, on highway=bus_stop or on both?
And which one of them should i add to the route relation? It were a
lot easier if there were just one object.

> Perhaps sometimes you'll have to add the ref=* to both the stop and
> the platform, but that's ok. The public_transport=stop_position +
> =platform + stop_area idea often leads to putting the same ref on 3
> different objects.
>
> In all other situations (rail platforms, regular bus stops without an
> elevated platform, tram stops etc), the Refined_Public_Transport
> proposal is clearly simpler than using public_transport=* tags, so it
> looks like a good option.

I find that proposal to be inconsistent and unnecessarily complex.
Inconsistent because sometimes highway=bus_stop has to be mapped
beside the road and at other times on the road, and because sometimes
there is one highway=bus_stop for one stop and at other times there is
one highway=bus_stop for two stops. And unnecessarily complex because
it not only requires a stop_area, but also a stop_area_group. In
contrast, my suggestion would only require stop_area's at stations.

Regards

Markus

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

Warin
In reply to this post by Jo-2
Ferries also seam to be forgotten...

public_transport=platform??? Covers ferry, bus, train, trams ... ??

(One ring to rule them all etc)

With regard to ref. I have bus stops that have 'Stand A' etc near train stations. these also carry a reference number that is used by the transport company - they are handy if you knowthem as you can type that in as your destination or start for there website on finding a trip scheduled/fee. Discussion on the Australian list resulted in this https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Bus_Stop_names_and_references



On 31/07/19 22:43, Jo wrote:
bus_bay = right | left | both (  https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/485293336  ) 

For me the object that represents the bus stop, is always a simple node. I don't see a problem for doing that in bus stations as well.

If there are actual platforms, whether in a bus station or somewhere along a way, it can be tagged:


or


for trams.

on a way.

These ways don't get the ref, name, route_ref, zone, local_ref, operator, network, and so on, those go on the node that represents the bus stop. Only that node needs to be added to the route relations. It doesn't get any simpler than that.

Good. I can see no benefit to adding additional information to the route. Things like shelters, toilets etc all become evident when the map is viewed. The routeing information does not need it.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/576656712  (example of a bus stop served by 3 different operators near Brussels, I only put public_transport=platform, bus=yes because for a few years that seemed like the right thing to do. Today I wouldn't mind removing those 2 tags once again.) 

Those platform ways could get:

tactile_paving=yes
wheelchair=yes
height=

So there is no real conflict between highway=bus_stop or railway=tram_stop on a node 

and

highway=platform or railway=platform on a way or an area.

Polyglot

On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 2:13 PM Paul Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 at 12:52, Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
Agreed, there are enough tags for public transport already. I don't
think anything new is needed.

There's something I haven't found a way of mapping.  That's a bus stop where there's a bay
inlet into the pavement (aka sidewalk, aka causeway).  If it served a different purpose and
had different road markings, it could be a lay-by (aka rest area) or a parking bay.  But it's a
bus stop where the bus does not obstruct the flow of traffic.  There are four of those in
my town, that I can think of (there may be others I've missed).

Yes, I could use area:highway or add area=yes to a closed way, but those don't seem to render
on a popular, well-known carto intended for mappers to check their work for anything but
pedestrian ways.

Is there a way of doing it that I've missed?  If not, could we have one?


--
Paul

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

Joseph Eisenberg
In reply to this post by Markus-5
If you read the talk page of the proposal,it’s clear that the stop_area relations are optional. I actually think that needs to be further clarified in the main text.

I’m not certain if any database users actually manage stop_area relations for public transit?

The ref can go on just the highway=bus_stop as a few other people and the proposal suggest.

The highway=platform way is like a highway=footway of building=roof which you might also add to the same vicinity to represent real features: it’s a real, physical feature; an elevated area for passengers to board or alight.

The bus stop node represents the bus service and is always present whether or not there is a physical platform, so it’s what you add to the route relation in the proposal. It looks like this is already fairly common practice.

Joseph

On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 1:32 AM Markus <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 at 13:52, Joseph Eisenberg
<[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Agreed, there are enough tags for public transport already. I don't
> think anything new is needed.

My idea was actually to replace the misnamed public_transport=platform
with public_transport=stop and to abandon highway=bus_stop and
railway=tram_stop as well as public_transport=stop_position. All in
all that's not more tags, but three less.

Besides, as there were only one element per stop (even if the stop is
a platform), public_transport=stop_area would only be necessary at
stations.

> If there is a platform where buses stop, then there's a bus stop, and
> a platform. The platform is a physical feature, and I believe it would
> still be a highway=platform even if the bus service were discontinued.

I agree, it remains a highway=platform even if it's not operated
anymore. But when it's operated, the platform actually represents a
bus stop.

> [...]
>
> The ref= should go on whatever of the two features that it actual
> refers to: if it's on the bus stop sign or pole, it probably
> represents the bus stop, but it might actually refer to the physical
> platform and each different bus route that stops there might have a
> different ref=* for that bus stop.

The number in my example refers to the place where people wait for the
buses, for numbers 1–7 this is the platform and for number 8 it is the
place on the sidewalk. So, where should i put ref=1 ... ref=7
according to you? On highway=platform, on highway=bus_stop or on both?
And which one of them should i add to the route relation? It were a
lot easier if there were just one object.

> Perhaps sometimes you'll have to add the ref=* to both the stop and
> the platform, but that's ok. The public_transport=stop_position +
> =platform + stop_area idea often leads to putting the same ref on 3
> different objects.
>
> In all other situations (rail platforms, regular bus stops without an
> elevated platform, tram stops etc), the Refined_Public_Transport
> proposal is clearly simpler than using public_transport=* tags, so it
> looks like a good option.

I find that proposal to be inconsistent and unnecessarily complex.
Inconsistent because sometimes highway=bus_stop has to be mapped
beside the road and at other times on the road, and because sometimes
there is one highway=bus_stop for one stop and at other times there is
one highway=bus_stop for two stops. And unnecessarily complex because
it not only requires a stop_area, but also a stop_area_group. In
contrast, my suggestion would only require stop_area's at stations.

Regards

Markus

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

Joseph Eisenberg
In reply to this post by Warin
Ferries use just amenity=ferry_terminal and route=ferry. You can also map the man_made=pier as the equivalent of a “platform”.

Similarly, aerialways like gondolas have their own station tag, aerialway=station.

The public_transport tags have never been popular for ferries or “aerialways”.

On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 9:39 AM Warin <[hidden email]> wrote:
Ferries also seam to be forgotten...

public_transport=platform??? Covers ferry, bus, train, trams ... ??

(One ring to rule them all etc)

With regard to ref. I have bus stops that have 'Stand A' etc near train stations. these also carry a reference number that is used by the transport company - they are handy if you knowthem as you can type that in as your destination or start for there website on finding a trip scheduled/fee. Discussion on the Australian list resulted in this https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Bus_Stop_names_and_references



On 31/07/19 22:43, Jo wrote:
bus_bay = right | left | both (  https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/485293336  ) 

For me the object that represents the bus stop, is always a simple node. I don't see a problem for doing that in bus stations as well.

If there are actual platforms, whether in a bus station or somewhere along a way, it can be tagged:


or


for trams.

on a way.

These ways don't get the ref, name, route_ref, zone, local_ref, operator, network, and so on, those go on the node that represents the bus stop. Only that node needs to be added to the route relations. It doesn't get any simpler than that.

Good. I can see no benefit to adding additional information to the route. Things like shelters, toilets etc all become evident when the map is viewed. The routeing information does not need it.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/576656712  (example of a bus stop served by 3 different operators near Brussels, I only put public_transport=platform, bus=yes because for a few years that seemed like the right thing to do. Today I wouldn't mind removing those 2 tags once again.) 

Those platform ways could get:

tactile_paving=yes
wheelchair=yes
height=

So there is no real conflict between highway=bus_stop or railway=tram_stop on a node 

and

highway=platform or railway=platform on a way or an area.

Polyglot

On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 2:13 PM Paul Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 at 12:52, Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
Agreed, there are enough tags for public transport already. I don't
think anything new is needed.

There's something I haven't found a way of mapping.  That's a bus stop where there's a bay
inlet into the pavement (aka sidewalk, aka causeway).  If it served a different purpose and
had different road markings, it could be a lay-by (aka rest area) or a parking bay.  But it's a
bus stop where the bus does not obstruct the flow of traffic.  There are four of those in
my town, that I can think of (there may be others I've missed).

Yes, I could use area:highway or add area=yes to a closed way, but those don't seem to render
on a popular, well-known carto intended for mappers to check their work for anything but
pedestrian ways.

Is there a way of doing it that I've missed?  If not, could we have one?


--
Paul

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

Daniel Koć
In reply to this post by Joseph Eisenberg
W dniu 01.08.2019 o 02:56, Joseph Eisenberg pisze:
> I’m not certain if any database users actually manage stop_area
> relations for public transit?

I'm not sure if you ask if stop_area tag is useful at all or you ask
only about such relation.

In Warsaw there are like 300 lines, if I remember correctly, and every
day some of them are changing, so the script is used to prepare routing
(to be tuned manually before commiting to a database). I'm not sure if
this is still used currently, but I can't imagine any better way to
manage this.


--
"Pojechałam truizmem, ale mogę, bo jestem trochę pierdołą" [P. Potocka]



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by Joseph Eisenberg


sent from a phone

On 1. Aug 2019, at 02:59, Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:

Ferries use just amenity=ferry_terminal and route=ferry. You can also map the man_made=pier as the equivalent of a “platform”.


yes, although there is also a proposal for seaway=ferry_port which is suitable for terminals and other ports:

Cheers Martin 

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

yo paseopor
In reply to this post by Warin
Yes, one ring (one key=one value) for all kind of public transports because it is easier to say this key and then what kind of transport do you have in.

It's better:

public_transport=stop_position or
public_transport=platform
and then bus,tram,train,subway,ferry,helicopter,UFO, future's vehicles...=yes

than

highway=bus_stop
railway=platform
railway=tram_stop
bus_bay=yes
ferry=station
whatever we have to invent in the future=*
...

Also I think if you want to map some complex situations you cannot use only one node for all of them, as we don't use it in banks and atm's.
Stop_area and stop_area_group are working well with big interchange stations.
There are 223000+ stop_area relations. And there are 4400+ stop_area_group relations, should we deprecate them? If you think there is no use about these tags. Please visit taginfo.
We have a small Mediterranean town called ... Barcelona that uses this transport scheme and we don't have any problem. You can see it at Osmand, Maps.me or OPVNkarte.

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


On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 2:39 AM Warin <[hidden email]> wrote:
Ferries also seam to be forgotten...

public_transport=platform??? Covers ferry, bus, train, trams ... ??

(One ring to rule them all etc)

With regard to ref. I have bus stops that have 'Stand A' etc near train stations. these also carry a reference number that is used by the transport company - they are handy if you knowthem as you can type that in as your destination or start for there website on finding a trip scheduled/fee. Discussion on the Australian list resulted in this https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Bus_Stop_names_and_references



On 31/07/19 22:43, Jo wrote:
bus_bay = right | left | both (  https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/485293336  ) 

For me the object that represents the bus stop, is always a simple node. I don't see a problem for doing that in bus stations as well.

If there are actual platforms, whether in a bus station or somewhere along a way, it can be tagged:


or


for trams.

on a way.

These ways don't get the ref, name, route_ref, zone, local_ref, operator, network, and so on, those go on the node that represents the bus stop. Only that node needs to be added to the route relations. It doesn't get any simpler than that.

Good. I can see no benefit to adding additional information to the route. Things like shelters, toilets etc all become evident when the map is viewed. The routeing information does not need it.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/576656712  (example of a bus stop served by 3 different operators near Brussels, I only put public_transport=platform, bus=yes because for a few years that seemed like the right thing to do. Today I wouldn't mind removing those 2 tags once again.) 

Those platform ways could get:

tactile_paving=yes
wheelchair=yes
height=

So there is no real conflict between highway=bus_stop or railway=tram_stop on a node 

and

highway=platform or railway=platform on a way or an area.

Polyglot

On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 2:13 PM Paul Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 at 12:52, Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
Agreed, there are enough tags for public transport already. I don't
think anything new is needed.

There's something I haven't found a way of mapping.  That's a bus stop where there's a bay
inlet into the pavement (aka sidewalk, aka causeway).  If it served a different purpose and
had different road markings, it could be a lay-by (aka rest area) or a parking bay.  But it's a
bus stop where the bus does not obstruct the flow of traffic.  There are four of those in
my town, that I can think of (there may be others I've missed).

Yes, I could use area:highway or add area=yes to a closed way, but those don't seem to render
on a popular, well-known carto intended for mappers to check their work for anything but
pedestrian ways.

Is there a way of doing it that I've missed?  If not, could we have one?


--
Paul

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
123