Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme
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 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
Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme
On 28/04/2019 17:13, DC Viennablog wrote: ...But in my opinion, as it stands, for bus or tram stops, these relations do not make that much sense. As any software should be able to find those connections between stops with the same name, the stop areas are quite redundent. Agreed Using a Vien example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7463438 As each stop has a unifying name tag each stop can be found & collected together. Even when in a relation, routers still have to iterate each item to find if the bus stop is on the correct street Note this is also an example of public_transport=platform being misused. There are no physical platforms, just a shelter with a bench. For bigger train stations, with differently named bus stops around it, that all belong to it in some way, a relation can be useful, but that case is quite rare. Disagree There is no connection, other than approximate location. They're different modes of transport, different operators. A passenger may wish to continue their journey using a bus stop hundreds of metres way, How far should this relation encompass? Bus passengers alighting aren't guaranteed to use the train station, they may cross the road to get their hair cut. Usually the stations would have the same name. If I find the time, I might also write a tagging/relation sugesstion that would slightly unclutter the tagging, but as we know, there have been many such suggestions so far, and there is never a 100% consensus. But no harm in discussing it. Agreed It needs discussing as it's a bit of a mess right now. Cheers DaveF Kind Regards RobinD. (emergency99) Von: Markus Gesendet: Sonntag, 28. April 2019 16:55:02 An: Public transport/transit/shared taxi related topics Betreff: Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme On Sun, 28 Apr 2019 at 16:29, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: Oh cool - with routing and time estimates and all? Navigation while travelling doesn't seem to work yet (it says "public transport navigation is currently in beta"), but it gives you a preview of the route: walking route, where to get on and off the vehicle, intermediate stops, estimated walking and driving time and distance. ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme
On 29/04/2019 16:22, Stephen Sprunk wrote: Stop areas are supposed to link stop positions to platforms, so a router knows which platform you need to take a route that only stops on a particular track. In most cases, this can be inferred by proximity, but in some it can't, particularly at very complex stations. If there needs to be a 'link' (& I'm still not convinced it does), can it not be achieved with unifying tags on nodes/ways? Why does it require a relation? Relations were devised to allow items which couldn't be achieved on nodes/ways alone (ie routes) not to collect things together. If it can be done without relations it makes tagging so much simpler & less prone to errors. Cheers DaveF ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme
On 29/04/2019 19:39, Markus wrote: On Mon, 29 Apr 2019 at 17:18, Stephen Sprunk 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. 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. 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. Cheers DaveF ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
