Talk:Tag:public transport=station

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Defining type of station

Someone asked a question regarding how to define which type of station it is, because this article doesn't give any help. How would one tag a public_transport=station to indicate it's a bus station, railway station, etc.? Just use bus=yes, train=yes, etc.?--Alester (talk) 17:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Non-standard tag use

There are a couple of tags listed that are either unnecessary or being used in non-standard ways:

  1. area=yes/no is redundant. If the station is drawn as a closed-way, then it's an area (area=yes). If it's drawn as a node, then it's not an area (area=no). There's no need to redundantly state what is already defined by the object's type.
  2. covered=yes is not meant to be used for underground objects. location=underground is used for that. covered=yes would only make sense for things like railway stations with an open-sided roof structure covering it.

--Alester (talk) 17:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree. And for the area tag, the description does not mention the reason. --Oligo (talk) 21:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Rendering?

This tag doesn't provide a visual indication on the map if mapped as an area. I have to use amenity=bus_station just for the sake of getting the icon. I'm aware of the bad practice that mapping for the renderer represents but, you know, people will look at the map (which will most likety be Mapnik) will have no clue of the actual position of the station. --Absay (talk) 08:39, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, this is not a tag that can be rendered by osm-carto at the moment (because of missing keys in the rendering database). There is not problem with amenity=bus_station, and particularly there's no conflict with public_transport=station. You can (and maybe should) use both tags on the same object. This has nothing to do with "mapping for the renderer". --Dieterdreist (talk) 09:13, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. It makes sense. The problem now is that amenity=bus_station kind of contradicts or at least implies to use either tag but not both at the same time. --Absay (talk) 18:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Okay scratch that! I hadn't seen before commenting it but it's been edited and now it reads much better and it looks pretty consistent! :) --Absay (talk) 18:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC)