Update public transport tags for STAN french network in analyser

[simonpct]

Hello,

We recently started adding the gtfs:stop_id:FR-GES-STAN= tags to platform elements based on GTFS and PTNA data. However, the current Osmose analyser does not recognize these stops, so adjustments are required for proper detection.

Previous tags:

New tags:

Example screenshot:

Would you mind reviewing my PR and confirming if the changes meet the requirements for Osmose integration? Thank you for your time!

[simonpct]

Up ? Thank you !

[frodrigo]

@nlehuby Can we have your review of this PR, please ?

[nlehuby]

Hello,

Bus stops here seem to be mapped in a rather unusual way compared to what is done in France (see in particular https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Bus#Arr%C3%AAt_de_bus), with a highway=bus_stop on the public_transport=stop_position, and an isolated public_transport=platform, mapped as a polygon.
This does not seem very sound to me (even if it remains broadly compatible with the approved transport scheme). Unless this is the result of a concerted decision by the local community, I would suggest cleaning up this point before carrying out open data integrations.

Regarding integration:

• The ref tag must correspond to a reference or identifier visible in the field. Is this the case here: can we see the actual GTFS stop_id displayed at bus stops?
• Is it really useful to add gtfs:location_type:FR-GES-STAN=0 to all stops?
• Is there a difference between the names displayed in the field and the names in the GTFS that would justify having both name and gtfs:stop_name:FR-GES-STAN tags?

[simonpct]

Hello,

Thank you for your feedback,

I followed PTV2 without fully integrating the common attributes,
I will adjust the mapping approach in the PR to align with established conventions.

Regarding the GTFS tags:

• ref: I will use the stop code for the ref tag, as this identifier is consistently displayed on the bus stops.
• gtfs:location_type: This is indeed not mandatory and I will remove it.
• name vs. gtfs:stop_name: I still think we should keep both. The name tag is necessary because the GTFS data often truncates stop names and can have accent-related display errors, meaning we cannot rely on it for the accurate, on-site name.

I will clean up the mapping and the tags based on these points.

[simonpct]

I followed the ptv2 and the gtfs pages on the wiki :

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/GTFS#Step_3:_Reference_the_object