[Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms

[Johnparis]

I don't think a tag is needed for "wild" platforms. As already noted,
public_transport=platform applies to nodes already. And shelter=yes/no or
bench=yes/no can be added if that's the infrastructure Christian means.
(Not clear to me what exactly a "wild" platform is.)

And if a tag is needed, stop vs stop_position would surely cause confusion!

As has been noted elsewhere, public_transport=platform was probably not an
ideal word choice, perhaps wait_area or some such would have been better,
but it is what it is.


On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 8:45 AM, Selfish Seahorse <selfishseahorse at gmail.com
> wrote:

> > If this is a problem, because the tag should ideally discrimnate built
> structure features, then either
> >
> > a) find a new tag for wild platforms
>
> Maybe public_transport=stop?
>
>
> On 29 March 2018 at 16:30, "Christian Müller" <cmue81 at gmx.de> wrote:
> > Mapping public transport in detail was in part started to aid impaired
> > people and people with diminished mobility.  The stop_position is an
> attempt
> > to tell for large/long platforms at which subarea of the platform you can
> > expect a public service vehicle to have an entrance (regardless of its
> > length, that may change with time of day or when the schedule of the
> company
> > is overhauled).
> >
> > The platform itself will not give you any clues which position to route a
> > user to so that him/her readjusting position on that platform is minimal
> > once the vehicle arrived and is ready for boarding.
> >
> > If the platform exists, mapping it is more important than the
> stop_position,
> > but the latter gives additional info _especially_ for lengthy or large
> > platforms.
> >
> > -----
> >
> > There have been complaints about added pseudo-platforms in the data.
> This
> > situation stems from the fact, that platforms are missing on ground (for
> > lack of money, political decisions or because the halt is seen as a
> > temporary one).  _Nevertheless_, public transport users _do_ and _have_
> to
> > use parts of the area around the PT-pole as a platform.  In this case the
> > tag is not used to map a built structure, but how the space is
> effectively
> > used on ground.  If this is a problem, because the tag should ideally
> > discrimnate built structure features, then either
> >
> > a) find a new tag for wild platforms
> > b) allow the platform tag on nodes and use a single node only where a
> built
> > platform structure does not exist
> >
> > may be an solution.
> >
> >
> > Greetings
> > cmuelle8
> >
> > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 29. März 2018 um 13:36 Uhr
> > Von: Jo <winfixit at gmail.com>
> > An: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" <
> tagging at openstreetmap.org>
> > Betreff: Re: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms
> > That's what I would like to see happen. Last year I created a wiki page
> > about it (with screenshots):
> >
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JOSM/Plugins/PT_
> Assistant/Mapping_Public_Transport_with_JOSM#Downloading_data
> >
> > Polyglot
> >
> > 2018-03-29 13:09 GMT+02:00 Selfish Seahorse <selfishseahorse at gmail.com>:
> >>
> >> > Otherwise, public_transport=stop_position could be abandoned, which
> >> > would make PTv2 tagging a lot easier and more time-efficient.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20180330/0fec0695/attachment.html>