[Tagging] Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

[Warin]

Ferries also seam to be forgotten...

public_transport=platform??? Covers ferry, bus, train, trams ... ??

(One ring to rule them all etc)

With regard to ref. I have bus stops that have 'Stand A' etc near train 
stations. these also carry a reference number that is used by the 
transport company - they are handy if you knowthem as you can type that 
in as your destination or start for there website on finding a trip 
scheduled/fee. Discussion on the Australian list resulted in this 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Bus_Stop_names_and_references



On 31/07/19 22:43, Jo wrote:
> bus_bay = right | left | both ( 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/485293336  )
>
> For me the object that represents the bus stop, is always a simple 
> node. I don't see a problem for doing that in bus stations as well.
>
> If there are actual platforms, whether in a bus station or somewhere 
> along a way, it can be tagged:
>
> highway=platform (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/304753571)
>
> or
>
> or railway=platform (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/255344359)
>
> for trams.
>
> on a way.
>
> These ways don't get the ref, name, route_ref, zone, local_ref, 
> operator, network, and so on, those go on the node that represents the 
> bus stop. Only that node needs to be added to the route relations. It 
> doesn't get any simpler than that.

Good. I can see no benefit to adding additional information to the 
route. Things like shelters, toilets etc all become evident when the map 
is viewed. The routeing information does not need it.
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/576656712 (example of a bus stop 
> served by 3 different operators near Brussels, I only put 
> public_transport=platform, bus=yes because for a few years that seemed 
> like the right thing to do. Today I wouldn't mind removing those 2 
> tags once again.)
>
> Those platform ways could get:
>
> tactile_paving=yes
> wheelchair=yes
> height=
>
> So there is no real conflict between highway=bus_stop or 
> railway=tram_stop on a node
>
> and
>
> highway=platform or railway=platform on a way or an area.
>
> Polyglot
>
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 2:13 PM Paul Allen <pla16021 at gmail.com 
> <mailto:pla16021 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 at 12:52, Joseph Eisenberg
>     <joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com <mailto:joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com>>
>     wrote:
>
>         Agreed, there are enough tags for public transport already. I
>         don't
>         think anything new is needed.
>
>
>     There's something I haven't found a way of mapping. That's a bus
>     stop where there's a bay
>     inlet into the pavement (aka sidewalk, aka causeway).  If it
>     served a different purpose and
>     had different road markings, it could be a lay-by (aka rest area)
>     or a parking bay.  But it's a
>     bus stop where the bus does not obstruct the flow of traffic. 
>     There are four of those in
>     my town, that I can think of (there may be others I've missed).
>
>     Yes, I could use area:highway or add area=yes to a closed way, but
>     those don't seem to render
>     on a popular, well-known carto intended for mappers to check their
>     work for anything but
>     pedestrian ways.
>
>     Is there a way of doing it that I've missed?  If not, could we
>     have one?
>
>     Example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=20/52.08760/-4.65318
>
>     -- 
>     Paul
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Tagging mailing list
>     Tagging at openstreetmap.org <mailto: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/20190801/fae1b960/attachment-0001.html>