[Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms

[Jo]

When tagging platforms as ways, I wouldn't add details like name to them,
as the name would already be present on the platform node, which represents
the stop, both for rendering purposes as for being added to the route
relations.

I would only map a platform as a way, if there is tactile paving, or it's
higher than the rest of the sidewalk, or if it's clearly an island between
main road and cycleway. Before we had the bus_bay=right/left/both, I have
been adding platform ways in the shape of the bay. Not sure if that is the
best practice. As I got used to them, I think they render nicely, but it
may be exaggerated. They are not mapped for the purpose of adding them to
the route relations and there is clearly accommodations for the buses near
such stops. Most of them look like (narrower) sidewalks though.

Jo



2018-03-30 11:06 GMT+02:00 Selfish Seahorse <selfishseahorse at gmail.com>:

> > 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.
>
> I wouldn't call a sidewalk a platform, especially because the waiting
> area on the sidewalk often isn't clearly delimited. Furthermore,
> double tagging doesn't work if the sidewalk is called 'X Road' and the
> bus stop 'Y Square'.
>
>
> On 29 March 2018 at 23:17, "Christian Müller" <cmue81 at gmx.de> wrote:
> >> 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
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/d95e94e4/attachment.html>