Proposed features/Tag:railway=tram stop

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The Feature Page for the approved proposal railway=tram_stop is located at Tag:railway=tram_stop.
Status: Approved (active)
Proposed by: ?
Tagging: railway=tram_stop
Vote end: 2008-01-10


Something pointed out to me recently was that we can tell if it's a tram station by looking at the ways that the node is sitting on, and so mapnik/osmarender/etc. could then render them differently if that's the case. If it's on both a railway and a tram line then presumably it wants to be rendered as either both, or just as a more prominent (rail) station? TomChance 09:34, 29 March 2007 (BST)

  • That sounds like a good idea. Reusing the same tags ehenever it makes sense sounds good to me. --spaetz 17:08, 30 March 2007 (BST)
  • Alternatively, having a separate railway=tram_stop values makes database searches easier when we get on to interactive maps ("Show all tram stops"). I don't feel strongly about that though, "Show all stations" may be good enough. MikeCollinson 17:11, 23 April 2007 (BST)
  • I havn't been on, or seen, a tram before, so I'll just ask the following: Are there different status's of stops for trams, like busses have, with bus_stops and bus stations?. Or is it like a train where railway=halt could cover smaller stations, but there isn't any "(tram)railway_stops" in the "bus_stop" sence? Ben. 02:48, 30 March 2007 (BST)
  • As far as I have seen: 1) Tram stops can just be a spot on a street with a sign marking where it stops. 2) They can have little platforms in the middle of a street, effectively dividing the road. 3) I've seen trams that go underground in a city center and become virtually identical to a subway with underground stations (makes sense to actually tag it as subway here, I think). I haven't seen other stops, but there could be. --spaetz 17:08, 30 March 2007 (BST)
(The stops on the Los Angeles Orange line (dedicated busway, articulated busses) are virtually identical to the

stops on the light rail lines (gold, blue, green). The difference is they are on a dedicated busway rather than a rail line. user:blarson 00:12, 30 March 2007 (PDT)

  • In Hong Kong, tram stops are just like bus stops, a sign and often nothing else. Same in San Francisco. In Sydney, the tram runs partially on dedicated railway with distinct stations (platforms, signs, seats) and partially on roads where the stops are simple signs only. MikeCollinson 17:11, 23 April 2007 (BST)
  • are there tram stations equivalent to bus stations, i.e. buildings where you can buy tickets and access the tram? --Hawke 21:28, 11 June 2007 (BST)
Some larger tram stations have buildings, yes. Often these serve other modes of transport as well (i.e. bus and/or subway). Andrewpmk 18:19, 1 September 2007 (BST)
  • can we settle on railway=tram_stop for now? i will put this up for vote if there are no major objections, and later on, create a railway=tram_station for major tram intersections Myfanwy 22:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Please remove the alternatives from the Proposal before opening the vote. Personally, I agree with TomChance that the existing tags should be sufficient. Robx 09:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Just FYI, stops on the Croydon Tramlink in London all take the form of a raised platform with shelter, seating and ticket machines. --Edgemaster 23:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

    • good point, in fact unattended ticket sales are quite common. will amend the proposal again Myfanwy 23:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with TomChance. Why do we need an extra tag to specify this? In my city we're using the railway=halt on tramlines, it's working perfectly! The mean of transportation that halts at the place is specified by the way, containing the node. -- Fröstel 23:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Like TomChance and Fröstel, the way should be enough to decide which type of station/halt it is ... BTW could'nt we have different stations colors for different type of transpotations ?? On the current map of Brussels subway and train stations all look the same (red dots) ? --PhilippeP 06:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
      • We only have one way to render this, just because we don't have an easy way to distinguish. Simply looking at a way is not that easy to make rendering out of it. So if you want these stations to be rendered differently, you should accept different tags for the stations. -- Ulfl 04:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
        • It's definitely possible for some renderers (eg Osmarender) to render a node depending on properties of that node and properties of any way connected to that node. So yes it is technically feasible for at least one renderer. But it might not be possible for other renderers. If there is a specific tagging scheme that makes it clear and explicit then that would be better. It also makes it easier for searching etc. 80n 20:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • If a renderer can't check the tags of a way that a node is on, that is a problem with the renderer and not with the tags, in my opinion. I'd prefer not to include this kind of redundant data. I'm sure that similar problems will occur in the future, so fixing the renderer now would be a better solution. If the renderer can't be fixed, I'd prefer adding a tag like 'osmarender:station_type=tram'; this tag could regularly be updated automatically from 'railway=halt'-nodes on 'railway=tram'-ways. (I realize it's not OsmaRender that has this problem.) Robx 15:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
    • that's not a very practical solution: there are lots of occasions where one or more of use would like a certain situation to exist, but it can't for practical reasons. creating tags that 50% of our renderers can't work with is crazy - we have to work with what we've got, not what we think we should have. what impression do you think people will get upon looking at a map of melbourne (for example), and seeing 5000 'train stations' around the city (there are probably 200-300)? personally, i wouldn't be very trusting of that map. on the other hand, if we create a separate tag now, we can merge the two at the point all renderers can use it as we wishMyfanwy 07:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • a second point to consider here: searching. a map user may well want to search for the nearest tramstop, which would not be possible if the tram stops were labelled the same as train stations. we may want to keep them labelled separately Myfanwy 21:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I have yet to see a railway halt that is one-way only. For tram-stops one-way=yes would be quite common in my city (Gdansk/Poland). In many cases tram stops in two dirrections are on opposite side of a junction, even >100m apart. Thus I vote for this proposal and I might make a proposal about one-way tram stops in the future (we shall see). Tkadlubo 11:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


Voting is open until 2008-01-10

  • I approve this proposal Myfanwy 09:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal --Cohort 10:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal --Franc 10:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal SlowRider 10:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal. Florianschmitt 11:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal. FredB 11:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I disapprove of this proposal. Robx 15:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal, and will retag stops on the Croydon Tramlink when accepted and when both mapnik and t@h render it. --Edgemaster 11:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal.-- Kresp0 17:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal. --Nevermind 12:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal. -- Ulfl 12:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal. -- Tkadlubo 11:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal. --Eimai 22:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal. --Steelman 23:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal. --EdoM (lets talk about it) 23:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal. --Andrew T 00:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal. --LastGrape 10:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal. --Mackerski 10:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal. --Ckruetze 12:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal. --Deelkar (talk) 17:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal. --Andy 22:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

voting is now closed, this proposal this been approved