Proposed features/ticket validator
|Status:||Voting (under way)|
|Definition:||A tag for ticket validators, often found to gain access to an area or service like public transport or parking garages|
This proposal proposes the following tag:
- amenity=ticket_validator: a tag for ticket validators often, but not liminted, found in public transport stations
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:
- barrier=gate + foot=yes + note=OV-Chipkaart poort source (The Netherlands)
- barrier=turnstile + foot=yes + note=OV-Chipkaart poort + payment:OV-Chipkaart=yes source (the Netherlands)
- barrier=ticket_gate source (Australia)
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.
To map a ticket validator place a 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.
In the table below, some examples are illustrated.
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.|
|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:
The scanner on the right
|2 ticket scanners from different operators at a Dutch trainstation. These are examples of ticker scanners that can be mapped as separate nodes.|
The following pages are affected by this proposal:
Potentially, more pages need to be edited to include references to this new tag.
This proposal has initially been discussed on Discord (login required) 
Please comment on the discussion page.
- I approve this proposal. -- Cartographer10 (talk) 17:04, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. -- JeroenvanderGun (talk) 17:30, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. -- Emvee (talk) 19:33, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Fiszi37 (talk) 19:44, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Sounds really good, thank you Fanfouer (talk) 20:32, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Herrieman (talk) 21:01, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Kaartjesman (talk) 21:51, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Adiatmad (talk) 03:48, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Lejun (talk) 05:44, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Alexey.zakharenkov (talk) 07:31, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --501ghost (talk) 08:32, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Natfoot footnat (talk) 09:52, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --clay_c (talk) 12:38, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Zverik (talk) 13:53, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- 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. 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 approve this proposal. --Famlam (talk) 18:53, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --- Kovposch (talk) 03:10, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Roef (talk) 09:55, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 18:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. —-Dieterdreist (talk) 22:14, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- 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. --JeroenHoek (talk) 10:39, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --EneaSuper (talk) 11:51, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --★ → Airon 90 19:21, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Eginhard (talk) 19:32, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --NieWnen (talk) 21:07, 17 May 2022 (UTC)