-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

Am Thu, 9 Jun 2011 19:43:13 +0200 schrieb Sarah Hoffmann lonvia@denofr.de:

...

there was no discussion on whether we should add the new tagging schema (1) to the stops, if we touch them. If we do, i think we should *at least* place the bus stops ON the way with public_transport=stop_position. if the stop ist not exactly on the same place for both route directions, 2 nodes should be placed. and then, there is more about the public transport feature, but read it yourself.

My personal opinion in this: for simple bus stops, we should stick with the old schema. That is, put a highway=bus_stop node where the pole is and that's it. (For the Didok data, it means indeed to duplicate the imported nodes most of the time because there are two poles per stop.) For the more complicated stops or for micromapping train stations, use the new schema. Just make sure that one node remains that also has the traditional tags, so renderers don't get confused.

In my opinion it's not a good idea to set the goal on mixing up the two schemas. In one way they are complementing each other, but there is basically one point where they are different: the place for the bus stops. The problem with the old schema is described in the Proposal [1]: "Inconsistent handling of railway=tram_stop / railway=halt (node on the way) and highway=bus_stop (node beside the way)."

We have to decide on whether we want to map the stop_position or the platform if we want to keep the bus_stops as simple as possible.

I propose to tag the stop_position of the new schema, as this is IMHO the node that should be in the route relation at least. That would mean the tagging for basic bus stops would look like this:

highway=bus_stop //optional, you may leave it there to support the current renderers public_transport=stop_position bus=yes uic_name= //if there is no stop_area relation uic_ref= //if there is no stop_area relation

There should be 2 nodes, if the bus does not stop at the same position.

As of 8.6: nodes with highway=bus_stop or highway=bus_station without railway=tram_stop *on a highway*

1701 without public_transport tag 175 with public_transport tag

see this on [2]

nodes with highway=bus_stop or highway=bus_station without railway=tram_stop *not on a highway*

22793 without public_transport 209 with public_transport (they are not following the new schema as intended)

btw, having a DB at hand is cool :-)

[1]http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Public_Transport [2]http://osm.xiala.net/didok-check/?lat=47.16124065959858&lon=8.0996704101...,

Hello,

I have made a tool to show the public transport stops and lines in the geneva area. This tool uses the old transportation schema.

You can see the result for the geneva area here (don't use Internet Explorer but an other browser): http://gemedeplace.free.fr/MonOsm.html?tp=geneve

and two explanations in french: http://gemedeplace.free.fr/doc/TP.pdf http://gemedeplace.free.fr/doc/TPTechnique.pdf

I also don't understand the new schema. Why does the people make all this work to give the information from where the bus stop on the road. The old schema is easy. There is a bus stop, I can see the position, the name and the lines of the bus stop and I write it in OpenStreetMap. For a tool, it's easy to find all the bus stop from the same area (my tool make it). For a tool, it's easy to find the road(s) near a bus stop.

Please, don't destroy the previous work.

Olivier

Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2011 12:14:35 +0200 From: lonvia@denofr.de To: talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch Subject: Re: [talk-ch] Public Transport tagging (was: Didok check map)

On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 10:58:06PM +0200, Beni Buess wrote:

...

schrieb Sarah Hoffmann lonvia@denofr.de:

...

...

there was no discussion on whether we should add the new tagging schema (1) to the stops, if we touch them. If we do, i think we should *at least* place the bus stops ON the way with public_transport=stop_position. if the stop ist not exactly on the same place for both route directions, 2 nodes should be placed. and then, there is more about the public transport feature, but read it yourself.

My personal opinion in this: for simple bus stops, we should stick with the old schema. That is, put a highway=bus_stop node where the pole is and that's it. (For the Didok data, it means indeed to duplicate the imported nodes most of the time because there are two poles per stop.) For the more complicated stops or for micromapping train stations, use the new schema. Just make sure that one node remains that also has the traditional tags, so renderers don't get confused.

In my opinion it's not a good idea to set the goal on mixing up the two schemas. In one way they are complementing each other, but there is basically one point where they are different: the place for the bus stops.

I never quite understood the need for a stop_position. The only person who would need this information is the bus/tram/train driver. And if he/she needs OSM to find the stop position then this country is in serious trouble. Routing should always start and end at the platform.

There is another reason to prefer the platform node over stop_position: if rendered on a map a human can immediately determine which direction the stop serves when the platform node is rendered. That is valuable information you get for free. Why throw it away?

...

We have to decide on whether we want to map the stop_position or the platform if we want to keep the bus_stops as simple as possible.

I propose to tag the stop_position of the new schema, as this is IMHO the node that should be in the route relation at least.

Why? Why not put the platform in it? If you need a point on the way you can always determine the nearest point on the way. PostGIS has functions for that.

...

That would mean the tagging for basic bus stops would look like this:

highway=bus_stop //optional, you may leave it there to support the current renderers public_transport=stop_position bus=yes uic_name= //if there is no stop_area relation uic_ref= //if there is no stop_area relation

I simply don't see what is the point in replacing one simple and understandable tag (highway=bus_stop) with two rather mystic tags (public_transport=stop_position/platform, bus=yes) That is exactly why I think that the new proposal tries to make life of mappers as miserable as possible.

Especially as your little statistic here proves that it is very, very simple to determine, whether that highway=bus_stop is meant to be a stop_position or platform.

But that is all just my 2cents. Let each mapper decide. In any case, you need to support the two schemata because even if we decided right now to follow one or the other, it would take a while to consolidate.

Sarah _______________________________________________ talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch

On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 12:53:06AM +0200, Micha Ruh wrote:

I love xybot: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/530442918/history

thanks for changing operator tag.

I've send a message to xybot and asked to revert it.

Sarah