> Many people were involved creating those tags, they are well understood and > discriminate the features they describe in a thoroughly documented and > plausible way.
Apparently these tags aren't that well understood: I rarely encounter a PTv2 route that doesn't have at least one tagging error or isn't otherwise broken. And quite often I find public_transport=platform ways even though there isn't a physical platform. In my opinion, PTv2 is too complicated, time-consuming and delicate, and its tags aren't the most clear (e.g. waiting areas are called 'platform' even if there is no physical platform). But maybe the biggest problem, as Michael pointed out, is that renderers can't know if a public_transport=platform – the most important object for people looking for a public transport stop on a map – is served by a bus or a tram, because it isn't tagged with bus/tram/...=yes. I'm wondering why the limitations of PTv1 [^1] haven't been solved by keeping PTv1 tags, introducing route variant/master relations and mapping tram stops at the waiting area. [^1]: <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Public_Transport#Main_problem_with_the_existing_schema> On 28 March 2018 at 16:21, "Christian Müller" <cmu...@gmx.de> wrote: >> Sent: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 16:53:28 +0300 >> From: "Ilya Zverev" <i...@zverev.info> >> To: tagging@openstreetmap.org >> Subject: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms >> >> Hi folks, >> >> A while ago I've made a proposal to deprecate some public_transport=* tags: >> >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Drop_stop_positions_and_platforms >> > > In your proposal you complain about subjectively felt things like "history > won't go away", but at the same time you are trying to revert a part of > history itself - "the public_transport tags are seven years old now". Many > people were involved creating those tags, they are well understood and > discriminate the features they describe in a thoroughly documented and > plausible way. > > Just because a lot of deprecated tags have not vanished in favor of the new > ones yet does not mean there is a preference on the deprecated tags. A lot > of users and apps have adopted the new public_transport tags. It simply does > not make any sense to do a rollback on these for the observation of a > sluggish adoption/transition rate. > > The proposal has been long thought about and delivers, in itself, a coherent > way of tagging public transport infrastructure. It has learned from previous > tags, it is thus a refinement of the previous tagging. There will be lots of > people -unheared and not- that oppose breaking a (slow moving) transition > process at this point in time. Just be patient and give it some more years. > > You could help and promote the adoption, instead of dilating it. A lot of > rural area data has not been touched for years, waiting for you to do > research and remapping efforts. > > > Greetings > cmuelle8 > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
