Re: [Talk-transit] Proposed Feature - RFC - Public Transport

On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 6:43 AM, Dominik Mahrer (Teddy) wrote: > On 12/29/2010 12:30 AM, Richard Mann wrote: >> >> If someone maps a single node on the way and calls it >> highway=bus_stop, then that should be OK (but not recommended). > > unified_stoparea recommends that. You would allow but not

Re: [Talk-transit] Proposed Feature - RFC - Public Transport

On 12/29/2010 12:30 AM, Richard Mann wrote: If someone maps a single node on the way and calls it highway=bus_stop, then that should be OK (but not recommended). unified_stoparea recommends that. You would allow but not recommend it, correct? If someone then wants to put highway=bus_stop no

Re: [Talk-transit] Proposed Feature - RFC - Public Transport

On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 9:09 PM, Dominik Mahrer (Teddy) wrote: > Other mappers want to map a stop_position. At the moment they abuse > highway=bus_stop as stop_position. > > What do you suggest these mappers to use for as stop_position? If someone maps a single node on the way and calls it highw

Re: [Talk-transit] Proposed Feature - RFC - Public Transport

Hi Richard On 12/22/2010 12:16 AM, Richard Mann wrote: But what would you suggest to use as the stop_position for bus stops, if you would have to decide? I would expect data users to infer it from the position of the bus stop. Logically, you could mark a node for the stop_position between the

Re: [Talk-transit] Proposed Feature - RFC - Public Transport

On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 8:32 AM, Dominik Mahrer (Teddy) wrote: > How would you > handle existing routes, only containing the stop_positions > (railway=tram_stop)? Removing stop positions and adding the platform/pole? Leave them as they are. Or add platforms or highway=tram_stop nodes and put them

Re: [Talk-transit] Proposed Feature - RFC - Public Transport

On 12/13/2010 11:35 PM, Richard Mann wrote: Because sometimes trams just stop in the road, not at anything that might be described as a platform. The only thing you can see is a pole (looking remarkably like a bus stop, in fact). You could call them railway=platform nodes, but it doesn't sound ri

Re: [Talk-transit] Proposed Feature - RFC - Public Transport

On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 7:56 PM, Dominik Mahrer (Teddy) wrote: > You want to use railway=platform for relations for trains. Why creating a > new tag highway=tram_stop instead of railway=platform? Because sometimes trams just stop in the road, not at anything that might be described as a platform.

Re: [Talk-transit] Proposed Feature - RFC - Public Transport

On 12/13/2010 07:06 PM, Richard Mann wrote: Quite a large proportion (?90%) of the public_transport=platform nodes are also tagged highway=bus_stop (and bus=yes). Depending of the view this is one of the following: 1. It is the result of combining Oxomoa/public transport with unified stoparea

Re: [Talk-transit] Proposed Feature - RFC - Public Transport

On 12/13/2010 06:26 PM, Albin Michlmayr wrote: Till now I solved this by defining one stop in the loop as terminus. This lines then take different routes for each direction. Therefore I found the solution with single-direction route relations quite suitable. I don't know if this is the best solu

Re: [Talk-transit] Proposed Feature - RFC - Public Transport

On 12/13/2010 03:56 PM, Richard Mann wrote: Adding highway=tram_stop as the representation of the tram pole eliminates the inconsistency between railway=tram_stop and highway=bus_stop. What do you suggest for trains? railway=platform ways/areas replace the station nodes in the ordered list of s

Re: [Talk-transit] Proposed Feature - RFC - Public Transport

On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 5:26 PM, Albin Michlmayr wrote: > ... there are also already mapped about 57000 > objects as public_transport=* (23000 nodes as stop_position and 22000 > nodes and ways as platform) which of course is much less but also too > many to retag all these. Quite a large proporti

Re: [Talk-transit] Proposed Feature - RFC - Public Transport

Am Mon, 13 Dec 2010 12:12:15 + schrieb Richard Mann : > I think I may have figured out what it is that the established tags > can't do. Yes, I guess you found a quite good summary for the roots of this discussion. > If you've got a railway=tram with a series of nice neat (and > well-establis

Re: [Talk-transit] Proposed Feature - RFC - Public Transport

On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Dominik Mahrer (Teddy) wrote: > Adding highway=tram_stop as the representation of the tram pole eliminates > the inconsistency between railway=tram_stop and highway=bus_stop. What do > you suggest for trains? railway=platform ways/areas replace the station nodes i

Re: [Talk-transit] Proposed Feature - RFC - Public Transport

On 12/13/2010 01:12 PM, Richard Mann wrote: But this doesn't work well when you have lines that loop at the ends (fairly common with bus services), because the two relations overlap (you have to make certain nodes members in both relations, and that starts crossing a complexity/maintainability th

Re: [Talk-transit] Proposed Feature - RFC - Public Transport

I think I may have figured out what it is that the established tags can't do. If you've got a railway=tram with a series of nice neat (and well-established) railway=tram_stop nodes then you can only make that railway=tram_stop node a member of a route relation once. The oxomoa conclusion was to ha

Re: [Talk-transit] Proposed Feature - RFC - Public Transport

On 12/13/2010 11:52 AM, Jo wrote: I like the proposal, the only thing I don't like about it is the massive duplication of information in the route relations, which will make it harder to maintain them in the long run. But I see why we would do it that way. Maybe I'll come up with a proposal for '

Re: [Talk-transit] Proposed Feature - RFC - Public Transport

I'm one of the people who would like to add data about Public Tranportation. Since nobody likes to have to enter the same data several times, I can understand the need for a 'definitive' way to map PT in such a way that all downstream users (map rendereres, routers, etc) have the information they n

Re: [Talk-transit] Proposed Feature - RFC - Public Transport

On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 8:54 AM, Dominik Mahrer (Teddy) wrote: > You both are right, "old" is the wrong word for what I wanted to say. I do > not want to replace or deprecate highway=bus_stop. Because English is not my > first language, I catched up to consult my dictionary and I think > "traditio

Re: [Talk-transit] Proposed Feature - RFC - Public Transport

On 12/13/2010 02:17 AM, David Peek wrote: Can I just add, this seems to sum up most of my feelings towards this discussion - if it can be called that. Yes you can, and thanks you do. On 12 December 2010 13:35, Jerry Clough - OSM mailto:sk53_...@yahoo.co.uk>> wrote: Odd, this, as I can im

Re: [Talk-transit] Proposed Feature - RFC - Public Transport

; *To:* Public transport/transit/shared taxi related topics < > talk-transit@openstreetmap.org> > *Sent:* Fri, 10 December, 2010 15:31:50 > *Subject:* Re: [Talk-transit] Proposed Feature - RFC - Public Transport > > > > Think of a terminal bus station somewhere in the cente

Re: [Talk-transit] Proposed Feature - RFC - Public Transport

ist and discussions on the wiki is less likely to be successful. From: Dominik Mahrer (Teddy) To: Public transport/transit/shared taxi related topics Sent: Fri, 10 December, 2010 15:31:50 Subject: Re: [Talk-transit] Proposed Feature - RFC - Public Transport

Re: [Talk-transit] Proposed Feature - RFC - Public Transport

On 12/11/2010 03:32 PM, Michał Borsuk wrote: And by the way: What physical thing is represented by railway=tram_stop? I don't deal with trams. So you have a very limited view of Public Transport. Whenever I criticize Oxomoa I hear the same silly argument: "but in my Siedlung there's a b

Re: [Talk-transit] Proposed Feature - RFC - Public Transport

cool, I'm just blogging this for later, the Oxoma Schema sounds interesting to investigate further. cheers, sam On 12/8/10, Michael von Glasow wrote: > On 12/08/2010 08:44 PM, Dominik Mahrer (Teddy) wrote: >> Hello >> >> Yes, the Public Transport proposal is basically based on Oxomoa, but >> in s

Re: [Talk-transit] Proposed Feature - RFC - Public Transport

On 11 December 2010 15:08, Dominik Mahrer (Teddy) wrote: > On 12/11/2010 09:26 AM, Michał Borsuk wrote: > >>Many city and/or network public transport wiki pages in central >>europe recommend to use highway=bus_stop _on_ the way >> >> >> And they are wrong. Because according to OSM's princ

Re: [Talk-transit] Proposed Feature - RFC - Public Transport

On 12/11/2010 09:26 AM, Michał Borsuk wrote: Many city and/or network public transport wiki pages in central europe recommend to use highway=bus_stop _on_ the way And they are wrong. Because according to OSM's principles, the object should be placed where it physically exists. Dependi

Re: [Talk-transit] Proposed Feature - RFC - Public Transport

On 10 December 2010 22:12, Dominik Mahrer (Teddy) wrote: > On 12/10/2010 08:55 PM, Richard Mann wrote: > > I would agree that on-highway highway=bus_stop should be phased out >> (is anyone saying they should be retained?). I think they're a >> hangover from the time before we realised that taggi

Re: [Talk-transit] Proposed Feature - RFC - Public Transport

On 11 December 2010 00:39, Richard Mann wrote: > On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 9:12 PM, Dominik Mahrer (Teddy) > wrote: > > Especially see the German talk page. I would like to approve a tagging > > schema that is clearly defined. Doing this with new tags is portably the > > easiest way. Redefining hig

Re: [Talk-transit] Proposed Feature - RFC - Public Transport

On 12/11/2010 12:39 AM, Richard Mann wrote: The English-language discussion appears to have long reached a consensus (except for you). The decision to place highway=bus_stop beside the road has been made before highway=platform existed. Without highway=platform I also would vote for beside t

Re: [Talk-transit] Proposed Feature - RFC - Public Transport

On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 9:12 PM, Dominik Mahrer (Teddy) wrote: > Especially see the German talk page. I would like to approve a tagging > schema that is clearly defined. Doing this with new tags is portably the > easiest way. Redefining highway=bus_stop on or beside the way seams to be > nearly im

Re: [Talk-transit] Proposed Feature - RFC - Public Transport

On 12/10/2010 08:55 PM, Richard Mann wrote: I would agree that on-highway highway=bus_stop should be phased out (is anyone saying they should be retained?). I think they're a hangover from the time before we realised that tagging the pole was a better approach. In the mean time, I don't think it

Re: [Talk-transit] Proposed Feature - RFC - Public Transport

On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 7:17 PM, Michał Borsuk wrote: > If so, then may I ask if we really need this role? Could you provide an > example, as I may not completely understand the details? I was thinking about a relation like this: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/143147 (This is unor

Re: [Talk-transit] Proposed Feature - RFC - Public Transport

On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 3:31 PM, Dominik Mahrer (Teddy) wrote: > Think of a terminal bus station somewhere in the center of a city. Four bus > lines end here. One platform of 50m. The four lines stop always at the same > position (line 1 is first,..., line 4 is last). Only one pole for all buses.

Re: [Talk-transit] Proposed Feature - RFC - Public Transport

On 10 December 2010 12:31, Richard Mann wrote: > > I was thinking that role=loop on the loop stops might be one way to do > it, with role=terminus for single-point route ends (and as a notional > terminus on a loop)? > I think we're talking about two slightly different things. In my area there ar

Re: [Talk-transit] Proposed Feature - RFC - Public Transport

Think of a terminal bus station somewhere in the center of a city. Four bus lines end here. One platform of 50m. The four lines stop always at the same position (line 1 is first,..., line 4 is last). Only one pole for all buses. Where do you place your tags? Or how do you tell where to wait

Re: [Talk-transit] Proposed Feature - RFC - Public Transport

Dominik/Teddy Please could you explain what situation do highway=bus_stop / highway=platform / railway=platform not cover already, that requires public_transport=platform to be added to the list? If you're not intending to deprecate, then you're just adding complexity. Also I think you need to ma

Re: [Talk-transit] Proposed Feature - RFC - Public Transport

Hi Richard There appears to be a degree of consensus on using one type=route relation per direction (though it's not entirely clear whether this is really necessary), not worrying overmuch about telescopic routes or occasional diversions, and (groaning but) creating separate relations for routes

Re: [Talk-transit] Proposed Feature - RFC - Public Transport

Hi Richard The only inconsistency is that "tram_stop" generally refers to a stopping place and "bus_stop" generally refers to a quay. This is not enough reason to propose changing half a million established tags. Sometimes trams stop at bus_stops and sometimes buses stop at platforms, but that's

Re: [Talk-transit] Proposed Feature - RFC - Public Transport

On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 11:11 AM, Michał Borsuk wrote: > On 12/10/2010 11:20 AM, Richard Mann wrote: >> >> I think >> the biggest uncertainty is how you handle loops at the end of a route >> - do you have overlapping single-direction relations, pick an >> abritrary position to change direction, or

Re: [Talk-transit] Proposed Feature - RFC - Public Transport

On 12/10/2010 11:20 AM, Richard Mann wrote: I think the biggest uncertainty is how you handle loops at the end of a route - do you have overlapping single-direction relations, pick an abritrary position to change direction, or stick with having both directions in the same relation and let the dat

Re: [Talk-transit] Proposed Feature - RFC - Public Transport

On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 5:29 AM, Dominik Mahrer (Teddy) wrote: > On 12/10/2010 01:45 AM, Richard Mann wrote: >> >> highway=bus_stop on a node next to a road >> railway=tram_stop on a node on railway=tram >> railway=platform on a node or way or area next to the tram tracks > > This is how you are u

Re: [Talk-transit] Proposed Feature - RFC - Public Transport

On 9 December 2010 23:40, Michael von Glasow wrote: > On 12/09/2010 01:31 PM, Michał Borsuk wrote: > > > > > There is the issue of "multiple relations per line" in oxomoa, which in my > opinion is a total misfit. There are "roles" in relations, and different > variants of a route can be put ther

Re: [Talk-transit] Proposed Feature - RFC - Public Transport

On 12/09/2010 11:40 PM, Michael von Glasow wrote: http://78.46.81.38/api/sketch-line?network=SITAM&ref=69&style=padua Nice tool. But usability can be improved (GUI is missing). Regards Teddych ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetma

Re: [Talk-transit] Proposed Feature - RFC - Public Transport

On 12/10/2010 12:08 AM, Michael von Glasow wrote: 3. Which data primitive should be added for stops? Stop positions AND platform. Stop position is important for the route itself, the platform is important for pedestrian routing. Fine for me, though it does mean some more effort to enter data.

Re: [Talk-transit] Proposed Feature - RFC - Public Transport

On 12/10/2010 01:45 AM, Richard Mann wrote: highway=bus_stop on a node next to a road railway=tram_stop on a node on railway=tram railway=platform on a node or way or area next to the tram tracks This is how you are using it. It is inconsistent. It is incomplete. It is historic. Beside your op

Re: [Talk-transit] Proposed Feature - RFC - Public Transport

highway=bus_stop on a node next to a road railway=tram_stop on a node on railway=tram railway=platform on a node or way or area next to the tram tracks all work fine, so don't change them If you've got a bus stop in the middle of the road (if Alv can spot them, so can a router), it's probably qui

Re: [Talk-transit] Proposed Feature - RFC - Public Transport

On 12/09/2010 06:35 AM, Dominik Mahrer (Teddy) wrote: Hi Michael In the new proposal I am missing some details on how to build relations: 1. Should the outward and return trip be represented as two separate relations, as a single relation or is that up to the mapper? Each direction should be

Re: [Talk-transit] Proposed Feature - RFC - Public Transport

On 12/09/2010 01:31 PM, Michał Borsuk wrote: On 8 December 2010 20:44, Dominik Mahrer (Teddy) > wrote: Hello Yes, the Public Transport proposal is basically based on Oxomoa, but in some details different. I do not care about which of the two proposals

Re: [Talk-transit] Proposed Feature - RFC - Public Transport

Dominik Mahrer (Teddy teddy.ch> writes: > Yes, the Public Transport proposal is basically based on Oxomoa, but in > some details different. > > unified stoparea would "redefine" highway=bus_stop from beside the way > to on the way. I'm quite sure this would reject the proposal in a vote. > >

Re: [Talk-transit] Proposed Feature - RFC - Public Transport

On 09.12.2010 13:31, Michał Borsuk wrote: There is the issue of "multiple relations per line" in oxomoa, which in my opinion is a total misfit. There are "roles" in relations, and different variants of a route can be put there. Two, or more, relations per line is not only "illegal" (clearly aga

Re: [Talk-transit] Proposed Feature - RFC - Public Transport

On 8 December 2010 20:44, Dominik Mahrer (Teddy) wrote: > Hello > > Yes, the Public Transport proposal is basically based on Oxomoa, but in > some details different. > I do not care about which of the two proposals will be approved. But I think > it is time to get a more exact schema approved th

Re: [Talk-transit] Proposed Feature - RFC - Public Transport

Why do routers need a node on the street? Next you'll be wanting me to put a node on the street outside every house so you can route to a house. This is a problem that should be solved by the router, not in the data. Richard ___ Talk-transit mailing lis

Re: [Talk-transit] Proposed Feature - RFC - Public Transport

Hi Michael In the new proposal I am missing some details on how to build relations: 1. Should the outward and return trip be represented as two separate relations, as a single relation or is that up to the mapper? Each direction should be in a separate relation. This is written in the propos

Re: [Talk-transit] Proposed Feature - RFC - Public Transport

On 12/08/2010 08:44 PM, Dominik Mahrer (Teddy) wrote: Hello Yes, the Public Transport proposal is basically based on Oxomoa, but in some details different. unified stoparea would "redefine" highway=bus_stop from beside the way to on the way. I'm quite sure this would reject the proposal in a

Re: [Talk-transit] Proposed Feature - RFC - Public Transport

Hello Yes, the Public Transport proposal is basically based on Oxomoa, but in some details different. unified stoparea would "redefine" highway=bus_stop from beside the way to on the way. I'm quite sure this would reject the proposal in a vote. unified stoparea and public transport can and

Re: [Talk-transit] Proposed Feature - RFC - Public Transport

Dominik Mahrer (Teddy teddy.ch> writes: > I want to invite everyone to comment the (in central europe) already > widely used new Public Transport Schema: > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Public_Transport Hello, it's based on Oxomoa scheme, isn't it? What's the status o

[Talk-transit] Proposed Feature - RFC - Public Transport

Hi, I want to invite everyone to comment the (in central europe) already widely used new Public Transport Schema: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Public_Transport Teddych ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetma