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:
- 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.
- 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.
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)
Designed to access
Currently the main definition (short from them template) reads: A station is an area designed to access public transport. I would say there are at least two issues:
- why to "access", wouldn't it be possible to have a station only for leaving / disembarking public transport vehicles?
- why does the area has to be "designed to", can't it be "used for"? Thinking more about bus stations than about train stations here. --Dieterdreist (talk) 08:31, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- Question 1: That depends on your understanding of a station, I guess. My interpretation of the proposal text reads: "public_transport=station is a passenger station, i.e. explicitly excluding any form of (railway) yards that are referred to as stations in railway people's language as well and depots of any kind, that is not a simple bus stop or something that could be classified as railway=halt. For instance, a bus station must therefore have multiple bays and serve as a hub for regional or international travel to qualify for this tag."
- Question 2: I would say this refers to railway halts in Russia called mushroom stations. These do not have any features of a designated stop (railway track only, no nearby civilization). People apparently use them to access the nature for hiking or collecting mushrooms. I write "apparently" because I have never been to such a place yet. I guess it makes no difference for bus stops apart from the fact that I interpret the proposal's text as there has do be some mark verifying that it is a bus stop. Whereas your statement could be interpreted as "some place where a bus once stopped without a sign" like a frequent hop-on hop-off locality (not verifiable by means of the on the ground-rule).
- U30303020 (talk) 12:19, 2 June 2018 (UTC)