[Tagging] iD adding highway=footway to all railway/public_transport=platform ways and relations

Dave F davefoxfac63 at btinternet.com
Wed May 22 23:15:18 UTC 2019


They've (just quincylvania?) got their logic backwards. A platform is, 
by default, accessible by people. It's what they are designed for in the 
real world.

I find it strange/worrying he makes these far reaching decisions 
unilaterally (unless there's other hidden discussions not linked to in 
#6042

On 22/05/2019 23:23, Michael Reichert wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I discovered today that iD suggests to add highway=footway to
> railway/public_transport=platform objects as part of its new validation
> rules. On a GitHub ticket I found, Quincy Morgan explained it that way [1]:
>> Features with these tags are expected to be part of the pedestrian network, but without highway tags it is more difficult for routers (and iD's validation) to support them. iD should add highway=footway automatically and recommend upgrading features lacking this tag.
> I disagree with that.
>
> (1) Calling it difficult for routers is a weak reason. Currently, a
> router can decided to include platforms in the graph or to exclude them.
> Some do support or intentionally not support platforms. Platforms are
> something special. There are subtle but relevant differences to normal
> footways, e.g. the requirement to have a ticket (even without barriers
> present) or a cycling ban [2]). These differences are hidden by adding
> highway=footway.
>
> Instead of making life easier, life stays as difficult for the developer
> of routing engines but they have to change their code just for the sake
> of changing. If iD starts adding highway=* to any platform, all routers
> supporting the current tagging schema have to change their behaviour.
>
> (2) The following numbers (data from 2019-05-21T22:58:37Z) show that the
> change should be treated as the redefinition of a existing tag.
> highway=footway is rarely used on platforms now – currently 0.4% only.
>
> (Typewriter font recommened for optimal display of the following tables)
>
> pt: public_transport=platform
> r: railway=platform
> f: highway=footway
> pe: highway=pedestrian
> ways_linear: non-closed ways and ways without area=yes
> ways_area: closed ways with area=yes
>
> Planet:
> type            pt    r    ptr pt+f r+f pt+r+f pt+pe r+pe pt+r+pe
> nodes      1099931   203   857    8   0      0     0    0       0
> ways_linear 127899 24505 32096 3964 306    970    52    8       8
> ways_area    31652 19560 35729  265  15    342   171   15      14
> relations      818   614  3183    2   0     23    12    0       1
>
> US:
> type            pt    r   ptr pt+f r+f pt+r+f pt+pe r+pe pt+r+pe
> nodes        70394   19   242    0   0      0     0    0       0
> ways_linear   1196 1023  1940  148  12    361     2    0       0
> ways_area      674 1303  2233   10   0     32     6    0       1
> relations       10   11    14    0   0      0     1    0       0
>
> Germany:
> type            pt    r  pt+r pt+f r+f pt+r+f pt+pe r+pe pt+r+pe
> nodes       178981   15   101    1   0      0     0    0       0
> ways_linear  36427 1012  7143  663  41    172     2    0       0
> ways_area     7891  481  9823  184   1    269    48    5       9
> relations      274   35  1968    1   0     16     4    0       1
>
> France:
> type            pt    r  pt+r pt+f r+f pt+r+f pt+pe r+pe pt+r+pe
> nodes       102821    8    36    0   0      0     0    0       0
> ways_linear  17179 1342  2609   46   3     29     0    0       0
> ways_area     1173 1190  1941    5   1      2    21    4       0
> relations       12  104    53    0   0      0     1    0       0
>
> Great Britain:
> type            pt    r   ptr pt+f r+f pt+r+f pt+pe r+pe pt+r+pe
> nodes        37078    9     2    0   0      0     0    0       0
> ways_linear    300 2412  1012   18   7     15     1    0       0
> ways_area       59 2076  1243    0   2      0     3    0       2
> relations        3   31    85    0   0      0     0    0       0
>
> Poland:
> type            pt    r   ptr pt+f r+f pt+r+f pt+pe r+pe pt+r+pe
> nodes        22073   11     9    0   0      0     0    0       0
> ways_linear   9294  996   783  615   7     25     2    0       0
> ways_area    10327 2612  2189   42   0     24     6    2       1
> relations       37   14    37    0   0      0     0    0       0
>
> Switzerland:
> type            pt    r   ptr pt+f r+f pt+r+f pt+pe r+pe pt+r+pe
> nodes         6727    3     0    0   0      0     0    0       0
> ways_linear   5945  112   805  151   4      4     0    0       0
> ways_area      376  114  1864    1   0      3     0    0       0
> relations       11    9   248    0   0      0     0    0       0
>
> Italy:
> type            pt    r   ptr pt+f r+f pt+r+f pt+pe r+pe pt+r+pe
> nodes        31737    5    12    0   0      0     0    0       0
> ways_linear   3902 1435   757   43   8      0     1    0       0
> ways_area      190 1028   714    1   0      0     3    0       0
> relations        9   21     7    0   0      0     0    0       0
>
> Japan:
> type            pt    r   ptr pt+f r+f pt+r+f pt+pe r+pe pt+r+pe
> nodes        37185    7    13    0   0      0     0    0       0
> ways_linear    910  785  1110    9   1      1     0    0       0
> ways_area      342 1295  2207    0   0      0     2    0       0
> relations       24   38    85    0   0      0     0    0       0
>
> It is quite obvious that highway=footway on platforms is exotic.
>
> (3) highway=footway is added to ways which are clearly tagged as area
> using area=yes. Many routers route along the edges of areas but that's
> more a bug and workaround than a good feature. A highway=footway area is
> mapped as either area:highway=footway, not as highway=footway +
> area=yes. iD recommends bad tagging. highway=service and
> highway=pedestrian are the only tags where area=yes is widely accepted,
> isn't it? There is no linear footway along the edge of an platform but
> the whole platform polygon is the feature.
>
> I pointed out these reasons (not the numbers – I run my counting
> programme while preparing this email) today but my request rejected.
>
> What is your opinion on this issue? Feel free to reply to this email or
> comment at https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/6409
>
> Best regards
>
> Michael
>
>
>
> [1] https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/6042
> [2] highway=footway implies bicycle=no more or less strict but the
> distinction footway vs. cycleway vs. path is – let's call it – difficult
> in OSM. I tend to say that treating footways as slow and not to prefer
> cycleways is a good idea if no explicit tag is present.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190523/6048aeb3/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list