The thing is, as the area around Stockholm clearly shows, highway=bus_stop is indeed sufficient. If I were to remove all the public_transport=platform/bus=yes tags from the stops in Belgium, it's very likely that nobody would notice. If I were to remove highway=bus_stop, all of sudden it would seem that Belgium doesn't have bus stops anymore.
"Killing off" highway=bus_stop is what I have been trying to do (somewhat passively, or at least not very actively) for the past few years. Since about a year I came to the conclusion that forsaking public_transport tags would be more straightforward if we really want a simplification. And double tagging everyting to please everyone is quite likely the easiest thing to keep doing, even though it's awkward every time when you have to explain a highway=bus_stop isn't actually a highway and a public_transport=platform isn't actually a platform in 90% of the bus stops involved. This is probably what is going to happen, because the people who would like to abolish the public_transport tags will never agree with the people who want to abolish the highway=bus_stop tags. Polyglot, le défaitiste On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 9:46 PM DC Viennablog <emergenc...@outlook.com> wrote: > Yes, one object would be nice, however, I think it should be versatile > enough to be able to be a node, line or polygon. > So basically what public_transport=platform is. > I also don't mind it being called "platform", even if there is only a pole > stuck in a field. > That would not make p_t:v2 mapping futile, but enable a simpler scheme. > Also, we would not have the problem of having "bus_stop", "tram_stop", > "train_stop" being different things. > > The highway=bus_stop tag is a thing that locks the mode of transport in to > much. That should be killed of, especially because a bus waiting area is > pushing the "highway" tag a little bit (as are things like > "highway=footway", but I don't want to fully open that box here now!). > > Those tags like hw=bus_stop or railway=station were thought up at a time, > when those things (in OSM) were not seen as a group (public_transport) but > as they are in reality pretty similar in use and form of amenity, I think > it is suitable to go the way of unifying it as much as possible under the > p_t-umbrella. > > Also, any tag that is duplicating p_t tags in the "railway"-key-area > should possibly be looked at, but I think we would first need to simplify > the p_t in order for any other keys to be fitted to that. > > So how would people like the suggestion: > > > - Keeping only public_transport=platform as a needed object, without > hw=bus_stop > - (as it should also be used for trams, trains and any other mean > of public_transport – thinking things like the "Emirates Air Line" in > London). > - In a route relation, also only have that platform (with role "stop") > and the streets/rails. > - You would still need to make sure the first/last street of the > relation ends on a node near the platform point/area! > - Additional, purely convenient tags to say which mode of transport > stops there (bus=yes, tram=yes...) > > That would only be a slight tweak, that would still make the mapping more > straight forward, but also make it more dynamic in the usage-possibilities. > > Also, I think stop_area-relations should be rethought as grouping many > stations that could be interchanged between together. Take the Hauptbahnhof > in Vienna for example. The "Fernbusbahnhof", the regional bus terminal, the > station "Hauptbahnhof" of 13A/69A, the station "Hauptbahnhof Süd" of the > 69A and possibly even "Gertrude-Fröhlich-Sandner-Straße" are all just > situated at or near exits of the train station. So they are all part of > that "station-area". So I think, the stop-area should be kept, but as a > more useful relation to sum up stop/station complexes. That is a much > greater use for a relation than just telling within the database that one > thing belongs to another that is right next to it... > > And if required, the deletion/retagging of > stop_position/bus_stop/(tram_stop) nodes in areas where > "platform"-nodes/ways exist could be done in a semi-mechanical edit. > > Then, maybe the renders would also hail this only available tag as > something worth showing... > > KR > RobinD. (emergency99) > ------------------------------ > *Von:* Jo <winfi...@gmail.com> > *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 9. Mai 2019 20:22 > *An:* Public transport/transit/shared taxi related topics > *Betreff:* Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public > transportation scheme > > I have been holding off to respond to this. Almost a decade ago I started > asking for public_transport=platform combined with bus=yes to be rendered, > so it would become possible to drop highway=bus_stop. > > After all those years it has become obvious that there is no willingness > to do so. So it makes sense to drop the public_transport tagging scheme > instead as it clearly failed to deliver on its promise to streamline > mapping of public transport. > > As far as I am concerned a few things are important: > > * 1 single object to represent a bus stop. > * This object should clearly show on which side of the way the stop is > located. > * My preference is to have this mapped on a single node, which keeps > representing the stop for its 'lifetime'. > * There is no problem to use highway=bus_stop for such a node. > > So far, so good. > > In Belgium, the cities of Antwerp and Ghent and all the villages along the > coast have trams which are operated by the same operator as the buses. This > means that it can happen that the pole next to where the passengers wait > serves for both buses and trams. The operator assigned a single reference > number to these, so for me it's obvious that such tram stops go on those > same nodes and by extension so do all the other tram stops. > Apparently though tram and other rail infrastructure does have nodes, but > those nodes seem to be mapped as nodes on the railway itself and that's > where things start to clash. Not really a big deal, unless you meet a > mapper who insists those nodes should be on the railway ways... > > By analogy I would also have nodes next to the railway for subway and > maybe even for train, but I never actually got around to mapping train > infrastructure, the 70000 bus and tram stops were enough to keep me busy. > > Polyglot > > On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 1:19 PM Dave F via Talk-transit < > talk-transit@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > > > On 08/05/2019 20:56, Tijmen Stam wrote: > > > > I never understood the whole railway=platform discussion. > > IHMO hw=bus_stop, hw=platform and rw=platform should die, and all be > > replaced by public_transport=platform > > You fail to say why. > > > I have updated entire public transport concessions with almost all > > stops having a platform way or area. In places where I did make > > something _new_, I didn't include highway=bus_stop and deleted the old > > one, > > Please clarify what you mean by the "old one" > > > under the "don't tag for the renderer" idea, and everything works fine > > on my preferred renderer (osmand) > > That isn't the only rendering > > > DaveF > > _______________________________________________ > 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
