[talk-ch] Public Transport tagging (was: Didok check map)
oliviers1 at live.fr
Sun Jun 12 08:21:06 CEST 2011
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):
and two explanations in french:
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.
> Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2011 12:14:35 +0200
> From: lonvia at denofr.de
> To: talk-ch at 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 at 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.
> talk-ch mailing list
> talk-ch at openstreetmap.ch
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the talk-ch