On Saturday 23 June 2018 01:56:00 HKT Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2018, 10:36 Michael Tsang wrote:
> > My problem is "How should we tag a public transport through
> > service route?"
>
> What's the use case? Better interchange for OSM to GTFS synchronization?
Useful for PT routing eng
Also:
highway=bus_stop, currently tagged beside the road -> public_transport=platform
highway=tram_stop, currently tagged on the rail ->
public_transport=stop_position
homogenizing these to public_transport=platform and
public_transport=stop_position and allowing either or both to be defined fo
On 23/06/18 09:54, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
sent from a phone
On 23. Jun 2018, at 00:55, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
then why are we all worrying so much about stop positions? The driver knows he has
to stop at this location, & (I'm pretty certain! :-)) he's not staring at his
phone / GPS
sent from a phone
> On 23. Jun 2018, at 00:55, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
> then why are we all worrying so much about stop positions? The driver knows
> he has to stop at this location, & (I'm pretty certain! :-)) he's not staring
> at his phone / GPS to see if OSM says he at's exactly the
On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 at 19:36, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
Have been following this whole conversation with interest (&, I must admit,
some confusion!).
Not wanting to be at all awkward :-), but if
The stop_position is the spot where the vehicle stops, it is not strictly
> needed for routing (of
On Friday 22 June 2018, Kevin Kenny wrote:
> [...]
>
> TL;DR: When I speak of being advised chiefly by data consumers,
> I don't mean conforming strictly to the limitations of existing
> programs ("tagging for the renderer" in the broad sense), but
> rather being informed by the principles:
> (a) i
I realize that my last message was far too long.
TL;DR: When I speak of being advised chiefly by data consumers,
I don't mean conforming strictly to the limitations of existing
programs ("tagging for the renderer" in the broad sense), but
rather being informed by the principles:
(a) it's impossibl
On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 2:25 PM Christoph Hormann wrote:
> Contrary to what some might want to believe OSM is not a software
> development project.
Correct. iD, however, is a software development project. It is one OSM
editor among many (or at least a few) and is not even the only one
available o
On Friday 22 June 2018, Kevin Kenny wrote:
> [...]
>
> Bryan's choices may seem arbitrary, but this follows a general tenet
> of open-source development: "he who does the work makes the rules."
Contrary to what some might want to believe OSM is not a software
development project.
And what you ar
On Fri, Jun 22, 2018, 10:36 Michael Tsang wrote:
> My problem is "How should we tag a public transport through
> service route?"
>
What's the use case? Better interchange for OSM to GTFS synchronization?
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetm
On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 14:52:32 +0200
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> if iD provided a mechanism to choose from different sets of presets
> (or maybe compose different subsets of presets to a set), the default
> set could be the one that most of all active mappers in the previous
> month have used.
Th
On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 7:45 AM Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
> I really welcome this discussion about these procedures, and the
> participation of Bryan. It is clear that any more rules or policies mean more
> work and less time for the fun things, and a slow down in development in
> general, b
> -Original Message-
> From: Michael Tsang
> Sent: Saturday, 23 June 2018 01:36
>
> I have raised this topic two years ago but it seems that there is
> no community consensus here. My problem is "How should we tag a
> public transport through service route?"
>
> In my city there are the
I have raised this topic two years ago but it seems that there is no community
consensus here. My problem is "How should we tag a public transport through
service route?"
In my city there are the following cases:
1. A simple circular route where a passenger can normally stay on board
through t
Most folks do use presets, especially those marking bus stops in the wild,
which is the vast majority of the cases that matter in this discussion.
Only recently (March 2018) did iD begin including PTv2 tags in its presets.
Before then, it only offered PTv1, that is, highway=bus_stop. So of course
For access restrictions we had started by using psv=yes, but I guess few
people will read that as public services vehicle and another problem with
that is that is apparently includes taxis as well.
Personallly, I see a big difference between a way tagged as *=platform and
a node with that tag.
On
Heh. Another example of the imperfectibility of language.
Neither the GTFS specification nor the NetEx standard envisions any
distinction between boarding-only and alighting-only points (or mixed ones,
for that matter), and I have never encountered any bus route where such a
distinction was made.
2018-06-22 15:28 GMT+02:00 :
> It's always the same tag. So any routing software can (foot) route you to
> a public_transport=platform, and if there are any route relations including
> that platform, they know that you will be able to enter that public
> transport route and can exit it at any publ
If you want to generate routing from one specific location to another,
utilizing public transport if available, you will end up with a route that goes:
By foot from the start to a location where you can board public transport.
The public transport then takes you from that location to another lo
2018-06-22 13:44 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :
> Good news - iD already allows anyone to replace the presets. You could
>> make an iD that contains just presets for HOT mapping, for example. People
>> are doing this already, but it requires making a copy of iD and hosting it
>> somewhere. Thi
sent from a phone
> On 22. Jun 2018, at 13:53, Johnparis wrote:
>
> It's not always a waiting area, btw, sometimes it's reserved for leaving the
> transportation device.
the definition for public_transport=platform is “The place where passengers are
waiting for the public transport vehicl
Because platform was chosen over waiting area or other possible
alternatives. It's not always a waiting area, btw, sometimes it's reserved
for leaving the transportation device.
I suppose a more accurate value would have been
"boarding_and_or_leaving_area", but there will always be exceptional cas
I really welcome this discussion about these procedures, and the
participation of Bryan. It is clear that any more rules or policies mean
more work and less time for the fun things, and a slow down in development
in general, but I feel it is important to have many eyes on this process,
because it i
Le 22. 06. 18 à 10:41, Jo a écrit :
> if there is a dedicated area, map it as a way or area and add:
> highway=platform for bus stops
> railway=platfomr for trams stops
> BUT keep the node tagged as
> public_transport=platform
you create duplicate objet for the same feature.
If you feel that tha
On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 07:35:27AM +0200, Jo wrote:
> The thing is, when PTv2 was voted, I asked what to do with the bus stop
> nodes next to the way. The answer was put public_transport=platform on
> those NODES. In fact they rather represent a pole with a flag on it. But
> for some bus stops, the
On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 01:26:37AM +0200, Yves wrote:
> Why adding 'platform' where there's no physical platform?
+1
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
On 22 June 2018 at 11:01, Paul Allen wrote:
> If I'm right, the only downsides are that I have to map two distinct
> objects (platform and
> stop position) and I have to repeat information (the name of the stop, at
> least) for both.
>
>
I have found that the downside is not so much in the initi
2018-06-22 11:01 GMT+02:00 Paul Allen :
> As far as routeing goes, the stop position is important. When I switch
> between bus/foot I do NOT (in most
> circumstances) walk through the platform itself and there's only a 50%
> chance I will walk past the length of
> the platform. Platforms are oft
2018-06-22 7:35 GMT+02:00 Jo :
>
>
> What I am trying to accomplish is that bus and tram stops would be
> represented by a single node, next to the highway.
>
tram stops are a different beast IMHO, often they do have a platform
(railway=platform is ok for these), some are like bus stops, it dep
On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 11:34 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer <
dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I am with Jo here: the stop_positions at bus stops do not add any
> information, at most they would add convenience for data consumers (if
> every bus stop had them), but OSM traditionally values mapper conv
Op vr 22 jun. 2018 om 10:10 schreef marc marc :
> Le 22. 06. 18 à 01:26, Yves a écrit :
> > Why adding 'platform' where there's no physical platform?
>
> public_transport=platform describe where passagers wait
> for a public transport.
> if there is no dedicated area, use a node outside the road/r
Le 22. 06. 18 à 01:26, Yves a écrit :
> Why adding 'platform' where there's no physical platform?
public_transport=platform describe where passagers wait
for a public transport.
if there is no dedicated area, use a node outside the road/rail
near the bus stop or near the railroad stop
32 matches
Mail list logo
