Yeah, but we don’t. I think this is because most amenities are either not as large as a railway operating site, or most of their area is public, so rendering or routing to them is a much simpler task.
Yeah, but we don’t. I think this is because most amenities are either not as large as a railway operating site, or most of their area is public, so rendering or routing to them is a much simpler task.
think airports, but also supermarkets (storage is not public), museums (archives not public), factories (few if any public areas), cemeteries, archaeological sites, and many more large scale facilities with possibly multiple entrances. Also parks for example are not so different from a routing point of view (large extension and several entrances). Railway stations are not so different from other POIs.
Fair enough, but I think I’ve already replied to this concern.
I updated File:Railway-station-tagging.svg and File:Railway-station-tagging simple.svg to this version. I also switched back the illustration used on Tag:railway=station to this.
I’ve uploaded this flowchart to the wiki as File:Railway station node placement flowchart.png and added it to Railway_stations#Location and Tag:railway=station# How to map.
Also, I’ve updated Railway stations and Tag:railway=station to reflect the new tagging schema. Thank you very much for all of your help!
you are now documenting area:railway=station for the station area, but this has 2 uses globally. The wiki should reflect actual tagging, please revert this.
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/area%3Arailway#values
There was a 50% increase for area:railway=station in the past 2 days. There are now 3 uses of area:railway=station. Please revert your edits asap to prevent more pointless tagging fragmentation. Make it a proposal if you believe it is a good idea, but don’t document it as established practice when it is basically unused.
As mentioned before, area:railway=
was already proposed historically Proposal:Railway Schematic Mapping - OpenStreetMap Wiki
An area representation of railway=station
can be logically provided for in area:railway=
An alternative is needed now to replace railway=station
areas without losing info. Using landuse=railway
alone means others will need to check and add back another feature again later.
and that’s what it still is - at most: “proposed”. It is not used. (and this specific proposal from 2013 is marked as “abandoned”, so please excuse if I am not interested in investing time to read the long text).
Around here, we are mapping railway=station for at least 15 years, although it is not so easy to find examples because people from remote removing some of them, but here are some older examples:
It never was necessary to distinguish “railway” and “area:railway” for these, because it is already implicit. And they do not have to be “replaced”. A node is a node and when it is a way or polygon relation (or some other geometry, e.g. site) it is not a node, very simple.
That’s not what’s being discussed here. railway=station
is to be a point, so there shouldn’t be duplicate railway=station
areas. This is not about whether the geometry type is “implicit”. It should be type-agnostic. railway=station
is a unique individually identifiable PoI feature. Whether for counting, data records, iterating, spatial analysis, searching, routing, rendering, or any application, there shouldn’t be 2 railway=station
objects.
That’s not what’s being discussed here.
railway=station
is to be a point, so there shouldn’t be duplicaterailway=station
areas.
it can be either a point or a polygon/area. Like almost all POIs, only very few can only be points, e.g. natural=peak
I agree that we should not have 2 railway=station objects for one station, these are mutually exclusive. If there are both, delete the node or retag it to something like station_centre or navaid, etc
It’s perhaps worth mentioning that the overwhelming majority (93%) are nodes. There are entire countries with lots of railway stations where they’re all mapped as nodes.
yes, there are 7000 railway stations mapped as areas, and much more still as nodes.
And 3 are mapped as area:railway=station
Well, no. Looking at the data one of those three could plausible be thought of as being the area of a railway station. The other two are a bit of railway landuse either side of a station.
fair enough, I didn’t bother to look into the details, it’s an unused key with some accidental occurrences.
To add to the discussion about object counts, for airports with icao code there are three quarters areas and one quarter nodes: icao | Keys | OpenStreetMap Taginfo
not very different from train stations, although airports typically have more centralized entry points while train stations can often be entered from different directions, which makes it potentially more useful to store the shape.
I don’t say every train station must be an area, it would likely be beneficial, but the smaller the thing is, the less important it is. Many railway stations are also underground, where it is more difficult to map the area.
19k subway stations (many of which are underground, although people don’t seem to tag it specifically, no location
combination indicated in taginfo and only 10% have a layer tag): station=subway | Tags | OpenStreetMap Taginfo
FWIW, I have undone the wikifiddling edit which tried to introduce area:railway=station
, despite it not being in use.