Re: [Talk-transit] Stop according to new PT scheme not rendered?

[john whelan]

Ottawa has all its bus stops in and rendered in OMAND and the normal
rendering web sites.  The city has links to the maps on its web site for
some years but all the bus stops are labelled highway=bus_stop and are
tagged with the stop numbers so you can text or phone a number to find out
when the next three buses are coming.

The only issue we have is new mappers adding or editing the bus stops.

Cheerio John


On 12 August 2014 10:02, Jo  wrote:

> If they need inspiration on how to convert the data to OSM format:
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Belgium/De_Lijndata
>
> If you think it would actually help, I can also stop adding
> highway=bus_stop on the next few thousand of bus stops I'm adding. But I
> don't think anybody would really care about whether Belgian or Swiss bus
> stops get rendered or not.
>
> Polyglot
>
>
> 2014-08-12 12:25 GMT+02:00 nounours77 :
>
>> I just have a meeting with a "big" (well for Swiss scale) Public
>> transport company. They want to tag and maintain (!) there lines in OSM.
>> And they will obviously render the data.
>> I was hesitating, but after our discussion here, I came to the conclusion
>> that I will advise them to tag ONLY the new schema, and adapt there
>> rendering accordingly.
>> They more tagger/public transport companies will do the same, the more
>> accepted the new tag will come.
>>
>> nounours77
>>
>> Am 12.08.2014 um 12:08 schrieb Janko Mihelić :
>>
>> It only takes one great public transport map with routing, and the new
>> scheme will come to life. Who cares about Openstreetmap default map. Who
>> cares about the public transport layer on Openstreetmap which doesn't even
>> have tram lines rendered. We need outside help with this :)
>>
>> Janko
>>
>>
>> 2014-08-12 0:55 GMT+02:00 Jo :
>>
>>> Now that the new way of rendering with Carto instead of Mapnik is
>>> finally becoming reality, it becomes clear that highway=bus_stop will never
>>> (or at least not during my lifetime) be replaced by
>>> public_transport=platform/bus=yes.
>>>
>>> I started to double tag all the new stops I'm adding and the ones I'm
>>> updating.
>>>
>>> Some people claim that public_transport=platform/bus=yes is longer and
>>> less efficient than highway=bus_stop, but of course
>>>
>>> highway=bus_stop
>>> public_transport=platform
>>> bus=yes
>>>
>>> is even less so, but I stopped caring about that.
>>>
>>> Pity,
>>>
>>> Polyglot
>>>
>>>
>>> 2013-12-11 21:41 GMT+01:00 Richard Mann <
>>> richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>> tag-transform is an osmosis plugin. It happens before conversion to the
 postgres database, so you can use any tags that exist in the wild


 On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 8:07 PM, Jo  wrote:

> For a long time, public_transport was not transfered to the DB used
> for the rendering of Mapnik. At that time it didn't make sense to update
> stylesheets.
>
> Jo
>
>
> 2013/12/11 Mike N 
>
>> On 12/11/2013 11:07 AM, fly wrote:
>>
>>> If you keep on adding both schemes simultaneously you will not notice
>>> the problem and there will be no reason for developers to adjust the
>>> software.
>>>
>>
>>  One of the problems in this situation is the map rendering
>> developers have not taken an interest in the new scheme.
>>
>>   If someone has submitted a 'pull request' that included the new
>> tagging scheme but it was ignored, that is a different story.  OSM is
>> frequently described as a do-ocracy - in which finished and coded 
>> solutions
>> win out over what is needed.  And it's quite possible that we public
>> transport mappers have been collecting and entering the information but
>> have never gotten into CSS Map stylesheets, or whatever is the technology
>> behind the renderers.
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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
>>>
>>>
>> ___
>> 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] Stop according to new PT scheme not rendered?

[Jo]

If they need inspiration on how to convert the data to OSM format:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Belgium/De_Lijndata

If you think it would actually help, I can also stop adding
highway=bus_stop on the next few thousand of bus stops I'm adding. But I
don't think anybody would really care about whether Belgian or Swiss bus
stops get rendered or not.

Polyglot


2014-08-12 12:25 GMT+02:00 nounours77 :

> I just have a meeting with a "big" (well for Swiss scale) Public transport
> company. They want to tag and maintain (!) there lines in OSM. And they
> will obviously render the data.
> I was hesitating, but after our discussion here, I came to the conclusion
> that I will advise them to tag ONLY the new schema, and adapt there
> rendering accordingly.
> They more tagger/public transport companies will do the same, the more
> accepted the new tag will come.
>
> nounours77
>
> Am 12.08.2014 um 12:08 schrieb Janko Mihelić :
>
> It only takes one great public transport map with routing, and the new
> scheme will come to life. Who cares about Openstreetmap default map. Who
> cares about the public transport layer on Openstreetmap which doesn't even
> have tram lines rendered. We need outside help with this :)
>
> Janko
>
>
> 2014-08-12 0:55 GMT+02:00 Jo :
>
>> Now that the new way of rendering with Carto instead of Mapnik is finally
>> becoming reality, it becomes clear that highway=bus_stop will never (or at
>> least not during my lifetime) be replaced by
>> public_transport=platform/bus=yes.
>>
>> I started to double tag all the new stops I'm adding and the ones I'm
>> updating.
>>
>> Some people claim that public_transport=platform/bus=yes is longer and
>> less efficient than highway=bus_stop, but of course
>>
>> highway=bus_stop
>> public_transport=platform
>> bus=yes
>>
>> is even less so, but I stopped caring about that.
>>
>> Pity,
>>
>> Polyglot
>>
>>
>> 2013-12-11 21:41 GMT+01:00 Richard Mann <
>> richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> tag-transform is an osmosis plugin. It happens before conversion to the
>>> postgres database, so you can use any tags that exist in the wild
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 8:07 PM, Jo  wrote:
>>>
 For a long time, public_transport was not transfered to the DB used for
 the rendering of Mapnik. At that time it didn't make sense to update
 stylesheets.

 Jo


 2013/12/11 Mike N 

> On 12/11/2013 11:07 AM, fly wrote:
>
>> If you keep on adding both schemes simultaneously you will not notice
>> the problem and there will be no reason for developers to adjust the
>> software.
>>
>
>  One of the problems in this situation is the map rendering developers
> have not taken an interest in the new scheme.
>
>   If someone has submitted a 'pull request' that included the new
> tagging scheme but it was ignored, that is a different story.  OSM is
> frequently described as a do-ocracy - in which finished and coded 
> solutions
> win out over what is needed.  And it's quite possible that we public
> transport mappers have been collecting and entering the information but
> have never gotten into CSS Map stylesheets, or whatever is the technology
> behind the renderers.
>
>
>
> ___
> 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
>>
>>
> ___
> 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] Stop according to new PT scheme not rendered?

[nounours77]

I just have a meeting with a "big" (well for Swiss scale) Public transport 
company. They want to tag and maintain (!) there lines in OSM. And they will 
obviously render the data.
I was hesitating, but after our discussion here, I came to the conclusion that 
I will advise them to tag ONLY the new schema, and adapt there rendering 
accordingly.
They more tagger/public transport companies will do the same, the more accepted 
the new tag will come.

nounours77

Am 12.08.2014 um 12:08 schrieb Janko Mihelić :

> It only takes one great public transport map with routing, and the new scheme 
> will come to life. Who cares about Openstreetmap default map. Who cares about 
> the public transport layer on Openstreetmap which doesn't even have tram 
> lines rendered. We need outside help with this :)
> 
> Janko
> 
> 
> 2014-08-12 0:55 GMT+02:00 Jo :
> Now that the new way of rendering with Carto instead of Mapnik is finally 
> becoming reality, it becomes clear that highway=bus_stop will never (or at 
> least not during my lifetime) be replaced by 
> public_transport=platform/bus=yes.
> 
> I started to double tag all the new stops I'm adding and the ones I'm 
> updating.
> 
> Some people claim that public_transport=platform/bus=yes is longer and less 
> efficient than highway=bus_stop, but of course
> 
> highway=bus_stop
> public_transport=platform
> bus=yes
> 
> is even less so, but I stopped caring about that.
> 
> Pity,
> 
> Polyglot
> 
> 
> 2013-12-11 21:41 GMT+01:00 Richard Mann :
> 
> tag-transform is an osmosis plugin. It happens before conversion to the 
> postgres database, so you can use any tags that exist in the wild
> 
> 
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 8:07 PM, Jo  wrote:
> For a long time, public_transport was not transfered to the DB used for the 
> rendering of Mapnik. At that time it didn't make sense to update stylesheets.
> 
> Jo
> 
> 
> 2013/12/11 Mike N 
> On 12/11/2013 11:07 AM, fly wrote:
> If you keep on adding both schemes simultaneously you will not notice
> the problem and there will be no reason for developers to adjust the
> software.
> 
>  One of the problems in this situation is the map rendering developers have 
> not taken an interest in the new scheme.
> 
>   If someone has submitted a 'pull request' that included the new tagging 
> scheme but it was ignored, that is a different story.  OSM is frequently 
> described as a do-ocracy - in which finished and coded solutions win out over 
> what is needed.  And it's quite possible that we public transport mappers 
> have been collecting and entering the information but have never gotten into 
> CSS Map stylesheets, or whatever is the technology behind the renderers.
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] Stop according to new PT scheme not rendered?

[Janko Mihelić]

It only takes one great public transport map with routing, and the new
scheme will come to life. Who cares about Openstreetmap default map. Who
cares about the public transport layer on Openstreetmap which doesn't even
have tram lines rendered. We need outside help with this :)

Janko


2014-08-12 0:55 GMT+02:00 Jo :

> Now that the new way of rendering with Carto instead of Mapnik is finally
> becoming reality, it becomes clear that highway=bus_stop will never (or at
> least not during my lifetime) be replaced by
> public_transport=platform/bus=yes.
>
> I started to double tag all the new stops I'm adding and the ones I'm
> updating.
>
> Some people claim that public_transport=platform/bus=yes is longer and
> less efficient than highway=bus_stop, but of course
>
> highway=bus_stop
> public_transport=platform
> bus=yes
>
> is even less so, but I stopped caring about that.
>
> Pity,
>
> Polyglot
>
>
> 2013-12-11 21:41 GMT+01:00 Richard Mann  >:
>
> tag-transform is an osmosis plugin. It happens before conversion to the
>> postgres database, so you can use any tags that exist in the wild
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 8:07 PM, Jo  wrote:
>>
>>> For a long time, public_transport was not transfered to the DB used for
>>> the rendering of Mapnik. At that time it didn't make sense to update
>>> stylesheets.
>>>
>>> Jo
>>>
>>>
>>> 2013/12/11 Mike N 
>>>
 On 12/11/2013 11:07 AM, fly wrote:

> If you keep on adding both schemes simultaneously you will not notice
> the problem and there will be no reason for developers to adjust the
> software.
>

  One of the problems in this situation is the map rendering developers
 have not taken an interest in the new scheme.

   If someone has submitted a 'pull request' that included the new
 tagging scheme but it was ignored, that is a different story.  OSM is
 frequently described as a do-ocracy - in which finished and coded solutions
 win out over what is needed.  And it's quite possible that we public
 transport mappers have been collecting and entering the information but
 have never gotten into CSS Map stylesheets, or whatever is the technology
 behind the renderers.



 ___
 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
>
>
___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

Re: [Talk-transit] Stop according to new PT scheme not rendered?

[Jo]

Now that the new way of rendering with Carto instead of Mapnik is finally
becoming reality, it becomes clear that highway=bus_stop will never (or at
least not during my lifetime) be replaced by
public_transport=platform/bus=yes.

I started to double tag all the new stops I'm adding and the ones I'm
updating.

Some people claim that public_transport=platform/bus=yes is longer and less
efficient than highway=bus_stop, but of course

highway=bus_stop
public_transport=platform
bus=yes

is even less so, but I stopped caring about that.

Pity,

Polyglot


2013-12-11 21:41 GMT+01:00 Richard Mann :

> tag-transform is an osmosis plugin. It happens before conversion to the
> postgres database, so you can use any tags that exist in the wild
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 8:07 PM, Jo  wrote:
>
>> For a long time, public_transport was not transfered to the DB used for
>> the rendering of Mapnik. At that time it didn't make sense to update
>> stylesheets.
>>
>> Jo
>>
>>
>> 2013/12/11 Mike N 
>>
>>> On 12/11/2013 11:07 AM, fly wrote:
>>>
 If you keep on adding both schemes simultaneously you will not notice
 the problem and there will be no reason for developers to adjust the
 software.

>>>
>>>  One of the problems in this situation is the map rendering developers
>>> have not taken an interest in the new scheme.
>>>
>>>   If someone has submitted a 'pull request' that included the new
>>> tagging scheme but it was ignored, that is a different story.  OSM is
>>> frequently described as a do-ocracy - in which finished and coded solutions
>>> win out over what is needed.  And it's quite possible that we public
>>> transport mappers have been collecting and entering the information but
>>> have never gotten into CSS Map stylesheets, or whatever is the technology
>>> behind the renderers.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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] Stop according to new PT scheme not rendered?

[Richard Mann]

tag-transform is an osmosis plugin. It happens before conversion to the
postgres database, so you can use any tags that exist in the wild


On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 8:07 PM, Jo  wrote:

> For a long time, public_transport was not transfered to the DB used for
> the rendering of Mapnik. At that time it didn't make sense to update
> stylesheets.
>
> Jo
>
>
> 2013/12/11 Mike N 
>
>> On 12/11/2013 11:07 AM, fly wrote:
>>
>>> If you keep on adding both schemes simultaneously you will not notice
>>> the problem and there will be no reason for developers to adjust the
>>> software.
>>>
>>
>>  One of the problems in this situation is the map rendering developers
>> have not taken an interest in the new scheme.
>>
>>   If someone has submitted a 'pull request' that included the new tagging
>> scheme but it was ignored, that is a different story.  OSM is frequently
>> described as a do-ocracy - in which finished and coded solutions win out
>> over what is needed.  And it's quite possible that we public transport
>> mappers have been collecting and entering the information but have never
>> gotten into CSS Map stylesheets, or whatever is the technology behind the
>> renderers.
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Stop according to new PT scheme not rendered?

[Jo]

The point would be that it then becomes possible to leave out
highway=bus_stop by contributors who want to do that, thus opening the
possibility to migrate towards the new scheme.

Jo


2013/12/11 Richard Mann 

> Simply rendering public_transport=platform+bus=yes (if that's correct) as
> a bus stop is a matter of a few lines of xml in the tag-transform (to
> insert a highway=bus_stop tag in relevant nodes, which the normal rendering
> processes can pick up). Though since this is functionally the same as the
> mappers adding a highway=bus_stop tag to the nodes then you do rather
> wonder what is the point.
>
> Of course it's probably more complicated than that, which is why the
> people who use these tags need to state what needs to be done, and in what
> situations.
>
> See http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Osmosis/TagTransform
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 7:36 PM, Mike N  wrote:
>
>> On 12/11/2013 11:07 AM, fly wrote:
>>
>>> If you keep on adding both schemes simultaneously you will not notice
>>> the problem and there will be no reason for developers to adjust the
>>> software.
>>>
>>
>>  One of the problems in this situation is the map rendering developers
>> have not taken an interest in the new scheme.
>>
>>   If someone has submitted a 'pull request' that included the new tagging
>> scheme but it was ignored, that is a different story.  OSM is frequently
>> described as a do-ocracy - in which finished and coded solutions win out
>> over what is needed.  And it's quite possible that we public transport
>> mappers have been collecting and entering the information but have never
>> gotten into CSS Map stylesheets, or whatever is the technology behind the
>> renderers.
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Stop according to new PT scheme not rendered?

[Jo]

For a long time, public_transport was not transfered to the DB used for the
rendering of Mapnik. At that time it didn't make sense to update
stylesheets.

Jo


2013/12/11 Mike N 

> On 12/11/2013 11:07 AM, fly wrote:
>
>> If you keep on adding both schemes simultaneously you will not notice
>> the problem and there will be no reason for developers to adjust the
>> software.
>>
>
>  One of the problems in this situation is the map rendering developers
> have not taken an interest in the new scheme.
>
>   If someone has submitted a 'pull request' that included the new tagging
> scheme but it was ignored, that is a different story.  OSM is frequently
> described as a do-ocracy - in which finished and coded solutions win out
> over what is needed.  And it's quite possible that we public transport
> mappers have been collecting and entering the information but have never
> gotten into CSS Map stylesheets, or whatever is the technology behind the
> renderers.
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Stop according to new PT scheme not rendered?

[Richard Mann]

Simply rendering public_transport=platform+bus=yes (if that's correct) as a
bus stop is a matter of a few lines of xml in the tag-transform (to insert
a highway=bus_stop tag in relevant nodes, which the normal rendering
processes can pick up). Though since this is functionally the same as the
mappers adding a highway=bus_stop tag to the nodes then you do rather
wonder what is the point.

Of course it's probably more complicated than that, which is why the people
who use these tags need to state what needs to be done, and in what
situations.

See http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Osmosis/TagTransform


On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 7:36 PM, Mike N  wrote:

> On 12/11/2013 11:07 AM, fly wrote:
>
>> If you keep on adding both schemes simultaneously you will not notice
>> the problem and there will be no reason for developers to adjust the
>> software.
>>
>
>  One of the problems in this situation is the map rendering developers
> have not taken an interest in the new scheme.
>
>   If someone has submitted a 'pull request' that included the new tagging
> scheme but it was ignored, that is a different story.  OSM is frequently
> described as a do-ocracy - in which finished and coded solutions win out
> over what is needed.  And it's quite possible that we public transport
> mappers have been collecting and entering the information but have never
> gotten into CSS Map stylesheets, or whatever is the technology behind the
> renderers.
>
>
> ___
> 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] Stop according to new PT scheme not rendered?

[Mike N]

On 12/11/2013 11:07 AM, fly wrote:

If you keep on adding both schemes simultaneously you will not notice
the problem and there will be no reason for developers to adjust the
software.


 One of the problems in this situation is the map rendering developers 
have not taken an interest in the new scheme.


  If someone has submitted a 'pull request' that included the new 
tagging scheme but it was ignored, that is a different story.  OSM is 
frequently described as a do-ocracy - in which finished and coded 
solutions win out over what is needed.  And it's quite possible that we 
public transport mappers have been collecting and entering the 
information but have never gotten into CSS Map stylesheets, or whatever 
is the technology behind the renderers.



___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

Re: [Talk-transit] Stop according to new PT scheme not rendered?

[Jo]

I went with the pragmatic solution, after being rebuffed several times.
You're not the first one who brings this up. :-)

It doesn't seem like there is a willingness to support the new scheme,
which leads me to say: ok, then it's not necessary to add the new tags, so
I don't. Then the rest of the mappers become annoyed because the validator
complains when they touch such route relations and even that is apparently
hard to fix without tagging on every route relation that it's only
implementing the new scheme half way through.

It's frustrating. I try to make the best of it. If you push me a bit, I'll
change the wiki page to reflect how I'm mapping at the moment. It may
relieve some frustration for new players, but it's more likely this will
cause an edit war on the wiki... which is why I didn't do it until now.

This situation is indeed ugly and not tenable.

Polyglot


2013/12/11 Ramas 

>
> On 11 December 2013 16:57, fly  wrote:
>
>> I do not care about the renderer anymore as I did create tickets/issues
>> about it a long time ago and I did not get any response.
>>
>> For new objects I only use the new scheme (even do not add area=yes to
>> platforms).
>>
>> For existing objects I simply add the new scheme.
>>
>>
> Hi guys,
> yeah, it's hard to change rendering rules by just opening new ticket. You
> know, i have implemented my own public transport layer -
> http://openmap.lt/#l=51.97448,13.54597,7,MT
> I'm gonna upgrade my rendering rules to new scheme. Any feedback would
> help.
>
> ___
> 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] Stop according to new PT scheme not rendered?

[Ramas]

On 11 December 2013 16:57, fly  wrote:

> I do not care about the renderer anymore as I did create tickets/issues
> about it a long time ago and I did not get any response.
>
> For new objects I only use the new scheme (even do not add area=yes to
> platforms).
>
> For existing objects I simply add the new scheme.
>
>
Hi guys,
yeah, it's hard to change rendering rules by just opening new ticket. You
know, i have implemented my own public transport layer -
http://openmap.lt/#l=51.97448,13.54597,7,MT
I'm gonna upgrade my rendering rules to new scheme. Any feedback would help.
___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

Re: [Talk-transit] Stop according to new PT scheme not rendered?

[fly]

On 11.12.2013 16:32, Pieren wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 4:25 PM, nounours77
> 
>> I really do not understand.
> 
> I will tell it differenty :
> why the renderers should support two tags for the same feature if it's
> not to deprecate one of them ?
> or
> why the proposal claims to not replace or deprecate previous tags and
> we get complains later that the new ones are ignored ?

Wait a minute.

If a new proposal tries to deprecate a well established tag it will be
rejected in over 90% of the cases. I do not know why people tend to be
conservative but they are.

In the case of public_transport, the conclusion was to preserve an easy
tagging system.

Evolution and deprecating in OSM will always lead to situations where
several common tags need to be interpreted.

My hope is/was that more people will/would comment on the tickets/issues
but sadly this was not the case so far.

If you keep on adding both schemes simultaneously you will not notice
the problem and there will be no reason for developers to adjust the
software.

One site [1] did at least start to render the new scheme along the old
on, so there is still hope that others will follow.


Cheers fly


[1]  http://www.öpnvkarte.de/

___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

Re: [Talk-transit] Stop according to new PT scheme not rendered?

[nounours77]

Thanks for the explanation, Pieren.

I understand your view. But it looks colored by „I’ve always been against this 
proposal“ to me. What’s happening now is what you feared, and why you were 
against. Maybe you should have been followed. Maybe fearing something might 
help creating it ...

I did not take part in these discussions, and so I am missing probably some 
important bits. But as an outsider, I would understand:

==>> If we vote for a new feature, and do not deprecate the old one, both would 
be equally valid and thus both should be supported by renderers and editors.
If I’m coding, I will obviously use the new one.

I think everybody on the street not being of OSM (or an OSM-newbe) would 
understand it this way. If my understanding is wrong, than the wiki should be 
changed, the proposal should be removed or whatever.

From the voting date I conclude that the „Grand Public Transport War" has taken 
place 2.5 years ago. Would it not be time to make peace? I see a lot of 
arguments in favor of making peace, looking ahead, but I currently do not see 
any objective reason to go on with this situation. 

I really have no opinion on which scheme is better, the old or the new. I find 
PublicTransportMapping difficult, but the problem for me are not the stops. So 
it does not really matter to me. The relation and master_route actually looks 
like an improvement to me, and I think making hierarchical relations (not 
knowing the potential technical problems behind) like discussed here 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-transit/2013-December/001645.html
 would help! (you wrote once " The method of how routes relations are already 
breaking highways is already stupid but that's another story. -- Pieren 14:26, 
31 March 2011 (BST)“   - maybe hierarchical routes is something you can align 
to?

Anybody for making peace and going on improve PT?

Nounours




Am 11.12.2013 um 16:32 schrieb Pieren :

> On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 4:25 PM, nounours77
> 
>> I really do not understand.
> 
> I will tell it differenty :
> why the renderers should support two tags for the same feature if it's
> not to deprecate one of them ?
> or
> why the proposal claims to not replace or deprecate previous tags and
> we get complains later that the new ones are ignored ?
> 
> Pieren
> 
> ___
> 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] Stop according to new PT scheme not rendered?

[Pieren]

On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 4:25 PM, nounours77

> I really do not understand.

I will tell it differenty :
why the renderers should support two tags for the same feature if it's
not to deprecate one of them ?
or
why the proposal claims to not replace or deprecate previous tags and
we get complains later that the new ones are ignored ?

Pieren

___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

Re: [Talk-transit] Stop according to new PT scheme not rendered?

[nounours77]

Am 11.12.2013 um 16:12 schrieb Pieren :

> 
> "This proposal does not replace, deprecate or obsolete the already
> existing and well known tags“

Everybody agrees on that. The old tags still stay valid.

> 
> Don't expect that renderers have to change since the proposal states
> clearly "it's not necessary“.

I do not understand this conclusion.
If we agree by voting on new tags - even if their use is only recommended and 
not mandatory (how could anything be mandatory in OSM?) - so if we agree that 
we can and should use the new tags, how can you conclude that „it’s not 
necessary“ to render them? This is a complete non-sense. Tagging something 
which than will not be rendered, what is this for???

I really do not understand.

Either there is a problem with the tagging - then everybody should agree to 
improve it.

Or there is a problem with rendering this tagging - which somebody should maybe 
explain me.

Is it technically so difficult to render both tagging schemes? Is this 
situation satisfying for anybody?


nounours
___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

Re: [Talk-transit] Stop according to new PT scheme not rendered?

[Pieren]

On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 3:57 PM, fly  wrote:

> For new objects I only use the new scheme (even do not add area=yes to
> platforms).
>
> For existing objects I simply add the new scheme.

Just to recall here what was in the original PT proposal put to the vote:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Public_Transport#What_this_proposal_does_not_cover

"This proposal does not replace, deprecate or obsolete the already
existing and well known tags"

Don't expect that renderers have to change since the proposal states
clearly "it's not necessary".

Pieren

___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

Re: [Talk-transit] Stop according to new PT scheme not rendered?

[nounours77]

hi fly,

thanks for sharing your experience.

Being new to OSM I do not understand this story entirely, but it seems to be a 
long ongoing war between adherents of the old tagging scheme and the new one. I 
also understand that sometime you can get tired of discussing and arguing about 
the same thing, so you just do your work.

But can you also understand that your solution is somehow frustrating for 
somebody coming to OSM and want to tag the world for the benefit of everyone? 
If I tag like you suggest according to the new rules (and that’s actually what 
I did!!!), and then realize that nobody even realizes my work. Or even work, if 
I correct a line that was tagged according to the old rules, but some streets 
changed, or some stops were added, and I „profit“ from the correction to shift 
to the new schema, and then suddenly the stops are not rendered anymore — this 
you cannot call an improvement?

=> So I do really not care who’s fault it was some time ago, but what I do care 
is that we have a very confusing situation, which does not help our common 
cause. I want to see this kind of application finally seeing light. 
http://i1034.photobucket.com/albums/a425/eisbaer99/OSM/PE_PubTransp_zps186b8f3f.png
If we fight over incompatible conventions, we will not advance.

How is willing to try to make these things move to the better???

Cheers, nounours77


Am 11.12.2013 um 15:57 schrieb fly :

> On 09.12.2013 17:09, Pieren wrote:
>> I find the answers on this thread so pathetic. This mailing list is
>> all about public transport and we get regularly so many complains in
>> other channels that the proposal is over complicated, unclear and is
>> promoting a version which is not supported by the tools like the
>> rendering since years. This is one of the biggest mess currently in
>> OSM and none of the people who created it seem to be brave enough to
>> improve things.
>> Either accept that the public transport proposal failed on some areas
>> and change the wiki or push stronger the devs and maintainers to adopt
>> the new one. You seems to be satisfied by the current situtation but,
>> again, it is so repulsive that many contributors just stop editing
>> public transport.
> 
> I do not care about the renderer anymore as I did create tickets/issues
> about it a long time ago and I did not get any response.
> 
> For new objects I only use the new scheme (even do not add area=yes to
> platforms).
> 
> For existing objects I simply add the new scheme.
> 
> The JOSM validator warning hits the spot where the old scheme does not
> work, e.g. determine between stop-position and platform and I meet
> several stop which have only one platform on one side of the road for
> both directions.
> 
> Cheers fly
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] Stop according to new PT scheme not rendered?

[fly]

On 09.12.2013 17:09, Pieren wrote:
> I find the answers on this thread so pathetic. This mailing list is
> all about public transport and we get regularly so many complains in
> other channels that the proposal is over complicated, unclear and is
> promoting a version which is not supported by the tools like the
> rendering since years. This is one of the biggest mess currently in
> OSM and none of the people who created it seem to be brave enough to
> improve things.
> Either accept that the public transport proposal failed on some areas
> and change the wiki or push stronger the devs and maintainers to adopt
> the new one. You seems to be satisfied by the current situtation but,
> again, it is so repulsive that many contributors just stop editing
> public transport.

I do not care about the renderer anymore as I did create tickets/issues
about it a long time ago and I did not get any response.

For new objects I only use the new scheme (even do not add area=yes to
platforms).

For existing objects I simply add the new scheme.

The JOSM validator warning hits the spot where the old scheme does not
work, e.g. determine between stop-position and platform and I meet
several stop which have only one platform on one side of the road for
both directions.

Cheers fly


___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

Re: [Talk-transit] Stop according to new PT scheme not rendered?

[Simon Legner]

Hi!

On 09/12/13 16:33, Jo wrote:

Could somebody fix the validator in JOSM? A node with highway=bus_stop
should not cause a warning when assigned a platform role in a route
relation. I also fail to see why stop and platform roles are needed in
stop_area relations. It's obvious which is which.


JOSM dev here.

The big problem concerning PT validation (in my opinion) is that it is 
unclear whether to validate according to the old scheme, or to the new 
scheme, or to the old+new scheme (when using stop_positon and bus_stop 
at the same time).
One cannot determine this from the members/roles since that is what you 
want to validate. Having a meta-tag PT:version=/v1/v2/v1;v2 (v1 
for old, v2 for the new, v1;v2 for old+new) on the route-relation would 
make many things easier.


Cheers,
Simon

___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

Re: [Talk-transit] Stop according to new PT scheme not rendered?

[Pieren]

I find the answers on this thread so pathetic. This mailing list is
all about public transport and we get regularly so many complains in
other channels that the proposal is over complicated, unclear and is
promoting a version which is not supported by the tools like the
rendering since years. This is one of the biggest mess currently in
OSM and none of the people who created it seem to be brave enough to
improve things.
Either accept that the public transport proposal failed on some areas
and change the wiki or push stronger the devs and maintainers to adopt
the new one. You seems to be satisfied by the current situtation but,
again, it is so repulsive that many contributors just stop editing
public transport.

Pieren

___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

Re: [Talk-transit] Stop according to new PT scheme not rendered?

[Richard Mann]

There are other "problems" with Andy's transport rendering that he would
probably put a greater priority on fixing(which doesn't mean he will do
them any time soon)

I ended up making my own bus map (in Maperitive)

Richard


On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Jo  wrote:

> You see Gilles? It's not about to happen anytime soon. (It's not the first
> time I receive this answer). It would also help if somebody updated the
> wiki page where the 'new' scheme is explained, to reflect this opinion.
>
> Could somebody fix the validator in JOSM? A node with highway=bus_stop
> should not cause a warning when assigned a platform role in a route
> relation. I also fail to see why stop and platform roles are needed in
> stop_area relations. It's obvious which is which.
>
>
> Jo
>
>
> 2013/12/9 Richard Mann 
>
>> highway=bus_stop & railway=tram_stop are well-established and do the
>> basic job perfectly well
>>
>> some people decided they wanted a different system
>>
>> the value to the renderers of processing the new system is unclear at
>> best; so they aren't likely to
>>
>> just add the established tags and be done with it
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 1:20 PM, Jo  wrote:
>>
>>> Eventually has already taken 2 years and might take another 5. I tag all
>>> my bus stops with highway=bus_stop, I'll replace it on all 4 of them
>>> with public_transport=platform/bus=yes at some point in the distant future.
>>> I've been asking to render it for ages now and I gave up hope.
>>> I also don't see why I would be double tagging though.
>>>
>>> The problem is, of course, that in my route relations I do use the role
>>> platform, and JOSM's validator doesn't like that. So be it. It's annoying
>>> when this pops up in other people's sessions though and they start asking
>>> questions about it.
>>>
>>> The icon you see in JOSM, is just an icon. The internal rendering rules
>>> give precedence to railway=tram_stop or public_transport=platform/tram=yes.
>>> That's not a problem.
>>>
>>> No reason for separating them.
>>>
>>> I do separate stops over different nodes when they belong to different
>>> operators though, because sometimes the zones differ, or the refs, or the
>>> names. I then combine them into a stop_area relation, together with a node
>>> public_transport=stop_position/bus=yes (as a node of the highway). I don't
>>> always create these and I never add them to the route relations.
>>>
>>> The route relations are a pain to maintain, no need to make it even more
>>> complicated.
>>>
>>> Polyglot
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2013/12/9 Mike N 
>>>
 On 12/9/2013 6:52 AM, Gilles Baumgartner wrote:

  Is it ok to *add* the legacy tag
> highway =bus_stop
> 
>
> to be at the same time compliant with the new tags but still make the
> renderer show the bus stop?
>

   I would recommend adding the legacy tag.   This is because the public
 transport tagging scheme is in a long transition period.  Eventually the
 map rendering rules will be modified to include the new scheme.

  *2. Combined stops, e.g. tram and bus*
>

  I'm not familiar with this problem; hopefully someone else will have a
 recommendation.


 ___
 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
>>
>>
>
> ___
> 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] Stop according to new PT scheme not rendered?

[Jo]

You see Gilles? It's not about to happen anytime soon. (It's not the first
time I receive this answer). It would also help if somebody updated the
wiki page where the 'new' scheme is explained, to reflect this opinion.

Could somebody fix the validator in JOSM? A node with highway=bus_stop
should not cause a warning when assigned a platform role in a route
relation. I also fail to see why stop and platform roles are needed in
stop_area relations. It's obvious which is which.


Jo


2013/12/9 Richard Mann 

> highway=bus_stop & railway=tram_stop are well-established and do the basic
> job perfectly well
>
> some people decided they wanted a different system
>
> the value to the renderers of processing the new system is unclear at
> best; so they aren't likely to
>
> just add the established tags and be done with it
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 1:20 PM, Jo  wrote:
>
>> Eventually has already taken 2 years and might take another 5. I tag all
>> my bus stops with highway=bus_stop, I'll replace it on all 4 of them
>> with public_transport=platform/bus=yes at some point in the distant future.
>> I've been asking to render it for ages now and I gave up hope.
>> I also don't see why I would be double tagging though.
>>
>> The problem is, of course, that in my route relations I do use the role
>> platform, and JOSM's validator doesn't like that. So be it. It's annoying
>> when this pops up in other people's sessions though and they start asking
>> questions about it.
>>
>> The icon you see in JOSM, is just an icon. The internal rendering rules
>> give precedence to railway=tram_stop or public_transport=platform/tram=yes.
>> That's not a problem.
>>
>> No reason for separating them.
>>
>> I do separate stops over different nodes when they belong to different
>> operators though, because sometimes the zones differ, or the refs, or the
>> names. I then combine them into a stop_area relation, together with a node
>> public_transport=stop_position/bus=yes (as a node of the highway). I don't
>> always create these and I never add them to the route relations.
>>
>> The route relations are a pain to maintain, no need to make it even more
>> complicated.
>>
>> Polyglot
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2013/12/9 Mike N 
>>
>>> On 12/9/2013 6:52 AM, Gilles Baumgartner wrote:
>>>
>>>  Is it ok to *add* the legacy tag
 highway =bus_stop
 

 to be at the same time compliant with the new tags but still make the
 renderer show the bus stop?

>>>
>>>   I would recommend adding the legacy tag.   This is because the public
>>> transport tagging scheme is in a long transition period.  Eventually the
>>> map rendering rules will be modified to include the new scheme.
>>>
>>>  *2. Combined stops, e.g. tram and bus*

>>>
>>>  I'm not familiar with this problem; hopefully someone else will have a
>>> recommendation.
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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
>
>
___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

Re: [Talk-transit] Stop according to new PT scheme not rendered?

[Richard Mann]

highway=bus_stop & railway=tram_stop are well-established and do the basic
job perfectly well

some people decided they wanted a different system

the value to the renderers of processing the new system is unclear at best;
so they aren't likely to

just add the established tags and be done with it


On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 1:20 PM, Jo  wrote:

> Eventually has already taken 2 years and might take another 5. I tag all
> my bus stops with highway=bus_stop, I'll replace it on all 4 of them
> with public_transport=platform/bus=yes at some point in the distant future.
> I've been asking to render it for ages now and I gave up hope.
> I also don't see why I would be double tagging though.
>
> The problem is, of course, that in my route relations I do use the role
> platform, and JOSM's validator doesn't like that. So be it. It's annoying
> when this pops up in other people's sessions though and they start asking
> questions about it.
>
> The icon you see in JOSM, is just an icon. The internal rendering rules
> give precedence to railway=tram_stop or public_transport=platform/tram=yes.
> That's not a problem.
>
> No reason for separating them.
>
> I do separate stops over different nodes when they belong to different
> operators though, because sometimes the zones differ, or the refs, or the
> names. I then combine them into a stop_area relation, together with a node
> public_transport=stop_position/bus=yes (as a node of the highway). I don't
> always create these and I never add them to the route relations.
>
> The route relations are a pain to maintain, no need to make it even more
> complicated.
>
> Polyglot
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 2013/12/9 Mike N 
>
>> On 12/9/2013 6:52 AM, Gilles Baumgartner wrote:
>>
>>  Is it ok to *add* the legacy tag
>>> highway =bus_stop
>>> 
>>>
>>> to be at the same time compliant with the new tags but still make the
>>> renderer show the bus stop?
>>>
>>
>>   I would recommend adding the legacy tag.   This is because the public
>> transport tagging scheme is in a long transition period.  Eventually the
>> map rendering rules will be modified to include the new scheme.
>>
>>  *2. Combined stops, e.g. tram and bus*
>>>
>>
>>  I'm not familiar with this problem; hopefully someone else will have a
>> recommendation.
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Stop according to new PT scheme not rendered?

[Jo]

Eventually has already taken 2 years and might take another 5. I tag all my
bus stops with highway=bus_stop, I'll replace it on all 4 of them with
public_transport=platform/bus=yes at some point in the distant future.
I've been asking to render it for ages now and I gave up hope.
I also don't see why I would be double tagging though.

The problem is, of course, that in my route relations I do use the role
platform, and JOSM's validator doesn't like that. So be it. It's annoying
when this pops up in other people's sessions though and they start asking
questions about it.

The icon you see in JOSM, is just an icon. The internal rendering rules
give precedence to railway=tram_stop or public_transport=platform/tram=yes.
That's not a problem.

No reason for separating them.

I do separate stops over different nodes when they belong to different
operators though, because sometimes the zones differ, or the refs, or the
names. I then combine them into a stop_area relation, together with a node
public_transport=stop_position/bus=yes (as a node of the highway). I don't
always create these and I never add them to the route relations.

The route relations are a pain to maintain, no need to make it even more
complicated.

Polyglot






2013/12/9 Mike N 

> On 12/9/2013 6:52 AM, Gilles Baumgartner wrote:
>
>  Is it ok to *add* the legacy tag
>> highway =bus_stop
>> 
>>
>> to be at the same time compliant with the new tags but still make the
>> renderer show the bus stop?
>>
>
>   I would recommend adding the legacy tag.   This is because the public
> transport tagging scheme is in a long transition period.  Eventually the
> map rendering rules will be modified to include the new scheme.
>
>  *2. Combined stops, e.g. tram and bus*
>>
>
>  I'm not familiar with this problem; hopefully someone else will have a
> recommendation.
>
>
> ___
> 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] Stop according to new PT scheme not rendered?

[Mike N]

On 12/9/2013 6:52 AM, Gilles Baumgartner wrote:


Is it ok to *add* the legacy tag
highway =bus_stop

to be at the same time compliant with the new tags but still make the
renderer show the bus stop?


  I would recommend adding the legacy tag.   This is because the public 
transport tagging scheme is in a long transition period.  Eventually the 
map rendering rules will be modified to include the new scheme.



*2. Combined stops, e.g. tram and bus*


 I'm not familiar with this problem; hopefully someone else will have a 
recommendation.



___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit