Talk:Relation:public transport

The key "public_transport" and it's value "stop_area" were introduced in the Public Transport Proposal. At that time, the idea of stop_area_groups was well known (from the Oxomoa paper) and it was NOT included in the proposal.

Not even including the view of the Public Transport Proposal when talking about a relation type introduced by it is not appropriate.

Weide

I added a warning --Klumbumbus (talk) 14:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Not sure why a warning was needed. To me it's very clear why I would use a stop_area_group. At the moment I'm grouping stop_area relations in other stop_area relations. Grouping them in a stop_area_group would make a lot more sense.

When I have a bus station, then I add the stops and what belongs to it, platform way, stop_position, shelter, waste_basket, electronic_display into a stop_area relation for each of platform. I use this information to know what belongs together. If a shelter or a platform way is shared, it goes into 2 such stop_area relations.

For the whole bus station, I add all those stop_area relations into another stop_area relation. But that's only to satisfy JOSM's validator. It would make more sense to use a stop_area_group, like I did initially.

Now if there is a railway or a metro station nearby, I will do the same for each of those platforms.\

Then I think it even makes sense to add another stop_area_group and each of the stop_area groups for the stations to that one.

--Polyglot (talk) 10:45, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

More roles

The original Proposal and the Wiki page Buses mention the roles stop_exit_only or stop_entry_only and platform_exit_only or platform_entry_only. Shouldn't they mentioned here too? And what about request stops and possible combinations? --GerdHH (talk) 19:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)