[Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms

Selfish Seahorse selfishseahorse at gmail.com
Fri Mar 30 11:52:01 UTC 2018


If I got you right, you map the platform as a
public_transport=platform way and add a public_transport=platform node
in addition?

Why not tag that node public_transport=stop then? This would allow for
a clear distinction between platform and stop.


On 30 March 2018 at 11:52, Jo <winfixit at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>



More information about the Tagging mailing list