stop_position is even worse for trains, which might be hundreds of
meters long with dozens of doors. The wiki says to map it as the
"center" of the train, but I'm not sure that's useful other than to
explicitly indicate which track the train uses, which could probably be
deduced from the route rel
The node doesn't describe the platform. The naming is unfortunate, but I
think we're stuck with it. The node represents the stop. What stop platform
way and stop_position node belongs together can be expressed using a
stop_area relation. Then it's needed only once. There is no need to do it
over an
Jo,
IMHO, if a stop_position exists but isn't in a relation, consumers can't
be sure which routes/platforms it applies to, and that means it's just
clutter rather than useful data. Given how many of them seem to be
flat-out wrong, though, we definitely need to document it better--and
make maybe
Here in Belgium, we have normal buses and longer ones, either can have 2
doors or 3 doors. There is no way of knowing which of those buses is going
to serve which stops at a given time. The only thing we do know for sure,
is that we are supposed to get on in front, except for wheelchairs and
parent
I knew this was going to be hard. Anyway, I made sure that it's definitely
allowed to tag bus stops as platform nodes. Every few months I look at the
wiki and each time it changes. At present it says that if a stop_position
node is present for a bus stop, it has to be added to the route relations.
Stephen wrote:
> If a consumer doesn't care about stop_position members, it's trivial
> to
> ignore them. If the current spec says they're mandatory, then
> propose
> making them optional; I would support that. I don't support
> prohibiting
> or removing them.
They are optional in the current sp
On 2018-04-16 08:11, Philip Barnes wrote:
On 16 April 2018 07:46:13 BST, Jo wrote:
Anyway, you're right in that the main point of my proposal is to get
people to add 1 object per stop to the route relations.
I think this is a good idea for bus routes as they are quite simple.
There is a sign,
On 16 April 2018 07:46:13 BST, Jo wrote:
>
>What I hear quite often in railway stations is: don't use the last
>three
>'cars' if you want to get off in minor station such and so. I almost
>never
>hear them say, get on the train in zone A-E, but I think it is written
>on
>the tickets sometimes,
Hi Roland,
For long trains like you describe, the platform is usually split up in
zones. I think it would make sense to have platform ways/areas that are
split to describe them in full detail. In practice these zones on the
platforms usually described by letters are not used individually, but
rath
Hi Polyglot,
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Public_Transport_map_all_stops_as_nodes
I do agree that it would be easier for everyone to have one and only one
member on the line relation per actual stop.
However, trains and sometimes also trams can have a significant leng
A few years ago it was meant as a way to comply with the PT v2 scheme. For
me a nice side effect is/was that JOSM assigns a platform role
automatically when adding them to route and stop_area relations. But it
wouldn't be hard to reprogram it to do that for simply
highway=bus_stop/railway=tram_stop
On 11 April 2018 at 19:38, Roland Hieber wrote:
> However, a main reason why the Public Transport schema was adopted [1]
> was exactly this differentiation between stop position on the route and
> platform position/waiting area for the passengers. This was done to
> increase the expressiveness of
Mapping stop_position nodes is just fine. I would simply not add them to
the route relations.
Mapping platforms as ways or areas adds enhances detail. But no need to add
them to the route relations.
The proposal is about having 1 object to represent the stops for its whole
lifetime and nodes happ
On Mon, Apr 09, 2018 at 07:19:32PM +0200, Jo wrote:
> Here goes my proposal for a reform in mapping public transport:
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Public_Transport_map_all_stops_as_nodes
[...]
As I understand it, in Public Transport schema speech, this proposal
comes
2018-04-10 16:23 GMT+02:00 Stephen Sprunk :
> But for the thousands of platform ways/areas that do already exist, you're
> proposing that someone has to go back and add nodes, move all the tags
> over, change which is the relation member, etc.? That's not very friendly.
>
You can rest assured tha
But for the thousands of platform ways/areas that do already exist,
you're proposing that someone has to go back and add nodes, move all the
tags over, change which is the relation member, etc.? That's not very
friendly.
S
On 2018-04-10 00:41, Jo wrote:
> The proposal doesn't say that it's no
The proposal doesn't say that it's not possible to map the actual platforms
as ways or areas in ADDITION to that node, if they are actually present.
What it says is that it's not necessary to transfer all the details from
the node to the way/area and replace the node in the route relations.
The n
On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 1:19 PM, Jo wrote:
> Here goes my proposal for a reform in mapping public transport:
[nodes not platforms]
If this applies to Heavy Rail and Light Rail rapid transit and not
just Bus Stops, I object.
The Transport layer on OpenStreetMap is much more useful at high zoom
le
Here goes my proposal for a reform in mapping public transport:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Public_Transport_map_all_stops_as_nodes
This is how I would change the main topic:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Polyglot/Public_transport
Polyglot
__
19 matches
Mail list logo