Re: [Tagging] stop area hierarchy
I tend to ignore those validator messages from JOSM. We could invent stop_area_group, but then we would simply get different warnings. When I make stop_area relations, I include everything that belongs together for one side of the road or that belongs to 1 platform in a bus station. Then I group those in a stop_area containing all those stop_area relations. If there is a bus station and a metro station next to a train station I have 3 such stop_area relations, which get group once again in a stop_area relation. The names don't necessarily correspond at the different levels. There might even be an airport included in the top level of the hierarchy, or a port terminal for ferries. Polyglot 2016-11-14 9:26 GMT+01:00 Tijmen Stam : > > Dear all, > > > > > > The wiki page of public_transport=stop_area includes a sentence "For > > larger interchanges it is often appropriate to organise stop areas into a > > hierarchy. Heathrow Airport would for example consist of 5 terminals, a > > coach station and two underground stations with many associated > > facilities." but I don't know how to make the hierarchy. > > > > > > For example, in my town there is an interchange with a metro station with > > two platforms, light rail station with six platforms and two associated > > bus stations. Currently there are four stop_areas, one for metro station, > > one for light rail station, one for each bus station. How to make that > > hierarachy? > > I had seen the same sentence and wrestled with it as well. > Concider the central station of Amsterdam, which has one (soon: two) > subway stations with 2 platforms each, a bus station with 10-is platforms, > another bus station with 7 platforms, two tram stations with 4-5 > platforms each, and a ferry terminal with 5ish ferry slips, and off course > 12 train platforms (with a/b/c sections meaning about 30-ish stop > position/platform combinations) > > What I would do is make a stop area for each "substation" (for one mode) > then make a general stop area which contains only stop areas and maybe one > main station node. This gives warnings from the JOSM validator, as a > stop_area isn't an accepted member of a stop_area. > > > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] stop area hierarchy
On 15-11-16 18:26, Jo wrote: I tend to ignore those validator messages from JOSM. We could invent stop_area_group, but then we would simply get different warnings. When I make stop_area relations, I include everything that belongs together for one side of the road or that belongs to 1 platform in a bus station. Whoa, that's quite different from how I interpret the stop_area. For example, for a "normal" bus stop, this would include 4 nodes (or 2 nodes and 2 ways): a platform and a stop_position for each direction. A bus station with 6 platforms would contain 12 nodes/ways at least, 2 per platform, + associated shelters, station nodes etc. What makes you think a stop_area belongs to exactly one stop_position+platform? Tijmen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] stop area hierarchy
That's the only way stop_area relations are useful for me. To relate a platform to stop_positions. When I'm building route relations, I have all the platforms in the correct order. What I then want to figure out is which ways need to be added to the route relation. Having 2 platforms and 2 stop_postiions in one stop_area is no help in that case. And if it can be resolved by means of proximity, then the stop_area wasn't needed for that purpose. Polyglot 2016-11-15 19:50 GMT+01:00 Tijmen Stam : > On 15-11-16 18:26, Jo wrote: > >> I tend to ignore those validator messages from JOSM. We could invent >> stop_area_group, but then we would simply get different warnings. >> >> When I make stop_area relations, I include everything that belongs >> together for one side of the road or that belongs to 1 platform in a bus >> station. >> > > Whoa, that's quite different from how I interpret the stop_area. For > example, for a "normal" bus stop, this would include 4 nodes (or 2 nodes > and 2 ways): a platform and a stop_position for each direction. > > A bus station with 6 platforms would contain 12 nodes/ways at least, 2 per > platform, + associated shelters, station nodes etc. > > What makes you think a stop_area belongs to exactly one > stop_position+platform? > > Tijmen > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Proper way to tag highways located in "dangerous" areas
It's the second time that we are having a major discussion here in Brazil, on how to tag highways located in "dangerous" areas. For example, some people consider slums and other communities as dangerous (since there is a risk of being robbed or even killed) and would like to don't have the router creating a route through them, using "access=destination" in every street located in such places for this, for example. Since they can't find another tag to indicate those "dangerous" places, they argue that access=destination is valid for this case. Other group (including me) find that this is wrong: we should not tag streets considered dangerous in OSM (specially when "dangerous" is subjective). We also think that access=destination is being wrongly used for this. Since we can't reach a consensus on this, we would like to hear some opinions and suggestions on how to handle such problem, please. I had one idea where such data should be kept outside OSM, and inserted in some post-processing phase (for example, tag every highway that is inside these areas with any needed/wanted property). Comments, please? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
