Proposed features/ticket validator

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
amenity=ticket_validator
Status: Voting (under way)
Proposed by: Cartographer10
Tagging: amenity=ticket_validator
Applies to: node
Definition: A tag for ticket validators, often found to gain access to an area or service like public transport or parking garages
Statistics:

Drafted on: 2022-04-24
RFC start: 2022-04-25
Vote start: 2022-05-10
Vote end: 2022-05-24

Proposal

This proposal proposes the following tag:

Rationale

The main reason why this proposal was started is because in OSM many access gates for public transport are mapped. These gates often require some kind of ticket validation (both analog or digital via a transport card). Currently, these are not mapped consistently as can be seen in some of the examples below:

Beside in public transport, ticket validators are also found in other locations like at the exit of a parking garage or as entrance to a (theme) park. The tag amenity=ticket_validator is already in use (used 2955 times) but is never formally approved. The wikipedia page currently also focuses only on usage in public transport. This proposal wants to define and approve this tag ( and as a result, provide a tagging scheme for public transport ticket validators to create a consistent tagging).


Other tagging considerations

  • For tagging the public transport ticket scanner, it was also suggested to introduce public_transport=ticket_scanner but this was too specific and did not allow the tagging of non public transport ticket validators.
  • It was also thought of to define a tag under barrier=* but there are also standalone ticket validators that are no barriers.

Tagging

To map a ticket validator place a node Node (attach it if possible to a way like a highway=* so that it routes) and tag it with amenity=ticket_validator. You can optionally use tags from the list below to extend the tagging:

  • operator=*: to specify the name of the ticket scanner operator.
  • barrier=*: use values like gate or turnstile to indicate the type of barrier the ticket scanner is included in.
  • fee=*: use this tag to indicate a fee is required for access (also see payment:*=*). This is the case for most ticket validators on barriers. Note that access=customers often does not apply because in most cases, the areas behind the ticket validators (even those on barriers) are publically available, only with a fee. Alse see fee:conditional=*.
  • payment:*=*: use this tag to indicate the accepted payment methods for this ticket scanner.
  • wheelchair=*: to indicate whether a ticket scanner can also be used by people in a wheelchair (most likely combined with a barrier tag).
  • level=*: use for indoor mapping to indicate at which level the ticker scanner is located in the station.
  • network=*: in case it a ticket validator for a public transport modality, you can specify the network it is part of.
  • capacity=*: when multiple ticket validators are generalized into a single node (for example if placed on a highway for routing purpose), use capacity to indicate the number of ticket scanners.

Examples

In the table below, some examples are illustrated.

Tagging Image Description
barrier=gate

amenity=ticket_validator

fee=yes

Kyoto Municipal Subway Rokujizo Station Ticket Gate.jpg

Creator (Haruno Akiha)

This is a ticket scanner included in a gate. It can be mapped as a row of nodes or attached to a way with highway if present.
barrier=turnstile

amenity=ticket_validator

fee=yes

Wtc path station turnstile.jpg

Creator (Aude)

This is a ticket scanner included in a turnstile. It can be mapped as a row of nodes or attached to a way with highway if present.
The scanner on the left:

amenity=ticket_validator

operator=Nederlandse Spoorwegen

payment:OV-Chipkaart=yes


The scanner on the right

amenity=ticket_validator

operator=Veolia

payment:OV-Chipkaart=yes

NS-Veolia kaartlezer II.JPG

Creator (Spoorjan)

2 ticket scanners from different operators at a Dutch trainstation. These are examples of ticker scanners that can be mapped as separate nodes.

Features/Pages affected

The following pages are affected by this proposal:


Potentially, more pages need to be edited to include references to this new tag.

External discussions

This proposal has initially been discussed on Discord (login required) [1]

Comments

Please comment on the discussion page.

Voting

Instructions for voting
  • Log in to the wiki if you are not already logged in.
  • Scroll down to voting and click 'Edit source'. Copy and paste the appropriate code from this table on its own line at the bottom of the text area:
To get this output you type Description
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal.
{{vote|yes}} --~~~~ Feel free to also explain why you support proposal.
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. reason
{{vote|no}} reason --~~~~ Replace reason with your reason(s) for voting no.
  • I abstain from voting but have comments I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. comments
{{vote|abstain}} comments --~~~~ If you don't want to vote but have comments. Replace comments with your comments.
Note: The ~~~~ automatically inserts your name and the current date.
For full template documentation see Template:Vote. See also how vote outcome is processed.
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. -- Cartographer10 (talk) 17:04, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. -- JeroenvanderGun (talk) 17:30, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. -- Emvee (talk) 19:33, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Fiszi37 (talk) 19:44, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Sounds really good, thank you Fanfouer (talk) 20:32, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Herrieman (talk) 21:01, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Kaartjesman (talk) 21:51, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Adiatmad (talk) 03:48, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Lejun (talk) 05:44, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Alexey.zakharenkov (talk) 07:31, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --501ghost (talk) 08:32, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Natfoot footnat (talk) 09:52, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --clay_c (talk) 12:38, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Zverik (talk) 13:53, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Reading the justification and documentation, this looks well considered and has a clear use case. Glad to see it --Bgo eiu (talk) 18:26, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. Proposes to deprecate two (less used) barrier values without actually proposing a replacement (checking you've got a valid ticket isn't the same as "validating" one in the sense of recording that you've started to use it) --SomeoneElse (talk) 18:47, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
@SomeoneElse: I do offer a replacement for the deprecated barrier tags namely barrier=* + amenity=ticket_validator. This allows to extend current barrier (e.g. gates or turnstiles) with amenity=ticket_validator to indicate that these barriers have a ticket validator built-in (or more a digital ticket scanner nowadays ). amenity=ticket_validator can also be used as a seperate node (not tagged with barrier=* if it is a standalone ticket validator with no barrier function. Correct me if misunderstand your comment--Cartographer10 (talk) 19:20, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
I think we should use a liberal interpretation of "ticket validator" to include any place where your "ticket" is checked. An OV-chipkaart is not literally a "ticket" either but rather a payment method. --JeroenvanderGun (talk) 17:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Famlam (talk) 18:53, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --- Kovposch (talk) 03:10, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Roef (talk) 09:55, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 18:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. —-Dieterdreist (talk) 22:14, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Thank you for spotting this. It might be useful to add examples from sport stadiums. Kubahaha (talk) 01:45, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --JeroenHoek (talk) 10:39, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --EneaSuper (talk) 11:51, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --★ → Airon 90 19:21, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Eginhard (talk) 19:32, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --NieWnen (talk) 21:07, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

References