[Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms

["Christian Müller"]

> Sent: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 19:55:34 +0200 
> From: "Selfish Seahorse" <selfishseahorse at gmail.com>
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" <tagging at openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms
>
> Or, very often, because there's a sidewalk and, therefore, no need for
> a platform.

In this case it is not wrong to tag a fraction of the sidewalk as platform,
there is dual (multipurpose) use in this case.  There are several variants,
sometimes the paving stones suggest a dedicated area over full or half of
the width, sometimes not.  Since the tags do not conflict with the highway
tags, double tagging with highway=footway public_transport=platform may be
a good way to reflect this ground situation.

This is also a nice way to see, why and where PT tags perform better than
the legacy tagging - a combination like highway=footway highway=platform
won't do.

> Doesn't b) correspond to how public_transport has been defined? 'If
> there is no platform in the real world, one can place a node at the
> pole.'

Yes, it corresponds. I remember seeing kv-pages with the node icon
crossed out.  Currently this (still?) applies e.g. to
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:railway%3Dplatform
It may have affected other platform related pages in the past.

So this is yet another example of a problem raised earlier: Legacy
information lingering in the wiki with sparse reference to the suc-
cessor for readers to compare.  As long as a 'deprecated' label is
missing, it seems natural to some extent that there is concurrent
competition between the older and the newer approach to map PT.


Greetings
cmuelle8