Hi
I don't wish for another thread to go off on a tangent so may I ask you
to read this one for my views on the hi-jacked 'platform' tag & the
numerous current PT schemas and ask you to contribute there:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-transit/2019-April/002052.html
But to
On Fri, 2019-05-24 at 08:18 +1000, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 04:49, Dave F via Tagging <
> tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> > Platform should only be tagged when their is a *physical* object of
> > a raise platform, not just an imaginary area of pavement.
> >
>
That bus stop has essentially the same surface conditions as the picture
for `highway=platform`. Who wants to update the wiki?
On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 3:46 PM Jo wrote:
> Indeed not a platform, just a bus stop with a bench and maybe a shelter,
> not sure. If the kerb were a bit higher where the
Indeed not a platform, just a bus stop with a bench and maybe a shelter,
not sure. If the kerb were a bit higher where the bus halts, I'd say
platform, but this is just a sidewalk.
That we map such a node with public_transport=platform/bus=yes doesn't make
it a platform. That's just convention
On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 04:49, Dave F via Tagging
wrote:
>
> Platform should only be tagged when their is a *physical* object of a
> raise platform, not just an imaginary area of pavement.
>
Sorry, but do you mean that this:
Please see the discussion on the Transit forum.
Platform should only be tagged when their is a *physical* object of a
raise platform, not just an imaginary area of pavement.
From OSM's Welcome page:
"OpenStreetMap is a place for mapping things that are both /real and
current/ "
"What it
That segment of platform by the bus shelter is both a footway and a
platform. In many scenarios, the "platform" might be distinguished by
nothing but some paint on a curb - clearly it's just a part of the sidewalk
where a bus stops.
We shouldn't ask mappers to decide how platform-ie or footway-ie
Ah, I see! That all makes sense.
On Thu, May 23, 2019, 10:42 AM Markus wrote:
> On Thu, 23 May 2019 at 18:28, Nick Bolten wrote:
> >
> > I'm confused, because these two statements seem incompatible. If it's
> redundant, how can it also have a conflict like different address
> restrictions? I'd
For me it is highway=platform, ID, is doing it wrong.
In a discussion, I drawn out a visualisation.
https://i.postimg.cc/wxJcG6bH/bushaltehaltekominvulling1.png
Allroads.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
I'd say so.
On 23/05/2019 19:03, Nick Bolten wrote:
> So would it be fair to say that a linear *=platform implies foot=yes and can
> be tagged with reasonable tags for a footway such as width, incline, surface,
> tactile paving, etc?
>
> On Thu, May 23, 2019, 9:46 AM Tobias Zwick
On Thu, 23 May 2019 at 18:28, Nick Bolten wrote:
>
> I'm confused, because these two statements seem incompatible. If it's
> redundant, how can it also have a conflict like different address
> restrictions? I'd like to know how, as a data consumer, I should reliably
> interpret existing
The only coherent rule I can surmise based on how footways are mapped "in
the wild" is that it's an outdoor linear feature and it's primarily
intended for pedestrians. Linear transit platforms people walk to, from,
and on seem to fit the other uses of the tag, hence my questions.
The rendering
So would it be fair to say that a linear *=platform implies foot=yes and
can be tagged with reasonable tags for a footway such as width, incline,
surface, tactile paving, etc?
On Thu, May 23, 2019, 9:46 AM Tobias Zwick wrote:
> "Redundant" is perhaps not the best way to describe the problem.
That's not an example of a trick question, just a normal question with
clear implications. I'd be happy to see examples of linear platform
features that aren't footways and have my intuition proven incorrect.
Are there any other outdoor linear features with primary pedestrian access
that aren't
On 23/05/2019 17:45, Tobias Zwick wrote:
"Redundant" is perhaps not the best way to describe the problem. I'd go about
this like this:
A "highway=footway" is a footway, a "public_transport=platform" is a bus stop
(platform). These are simply two different things. They *share* certain
"Redundant" is perhaps not the best way to describe the problem. I'd go about
this like this:
A "highway=footway" is a footway, a "public_transport=platform" is a bus stop
(platform). These are simply two different things. They *share* certain
properties, for example, they are accessible both
a platform, whether tagged as public_transport=platform, highway=platform
or railway=platform is always accessible and routeable for pedestrians. So
no need to explicitly tag them with highway=footway or foot=yes or
something of that nature.
Polyglot
On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 6:28 PM Nick Bolten
Le 23.05.19 à 18:26, Nick Bolten a écrit :
> I'd like to know how, as a data consumer, I should reliably interpret
> existing platforms without the tag added by iD.
without explicit value, it is impossible to say whether the platforms
is a public path, a public footway, or none of them.
On 5/23/2019 12:26 PM, Nick Bolten wrote:
I'm confused, because these two statements seem incompatible. If it's
redundant, how can it also have a conflict like different address
restrictions? I'd like to know how, as a data consumer, I should
reliably interpret existing platforms without the tag
I'm confused, because these two statements seem incompatible. If it's
redundant, how can it also have a conflict like different address
restrictions? I'd like to know how, as a data consumer, I should reliably
interpret existing platforms without the tag added by iD.
Taking a step back, can
Don't you think, with his refusal to participate in discussions about
raised issues, that it's often self inflicted?
On a couple of occasions he's said he ignores these forums & note how
often github threads are instantaneously closed.
DaveF
On 23/05/2019 09:16, Tobias Zwick wrote:
I like
I like your wording. It is a burden. He also takes all the complaints for bugs
and when iD steps on someone's shoes. This is a very stressful position to be
in.
Am 23. Mai 2019 09:38:06 MESZ schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer
:
>
>
>sent from a phone
>
>> On 23. May 2019, at 09:21, Mateusz Konieczny
I agree that adding highway=footway to platforms is not only
redundant, but (as pointed out by Michael) is bad because platforms
often have different access restrictions than highway=footway. iD's
validation rule should be removed.
Regards
Markus
___
sent from a phone
> On 23. May 2019, at 09:21, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>
> I think that main difference between JOSM validation (that is not causing
> repeated complaints,
> at least on this mailing list) and iD validation is that JOSM devs have no
> trouble
> with reverting or fixing
23 May 2019, 01:15 by tagging@openstreetmap.org:
> I find it strange/worrying he makes these far reaching decisions
> unilaterally
>
Note that JOSM also is doing this but in cases of unwanted or broken validation
it gets fixed/changed/rolled back.
I think that main difference between JOSM
This is a change on the OSM website that updates iD version so all changes are
bundled as one.
For more gradual commits/issues see https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD
23 May 2019, 01:39 by graemefi...@gmail.com:
>
>
> On Thu, 23 May 2019 at 09:10, marc marc <> marc_marc_...@hotmail.com
>
On Thu, 23 May 2019 at 09:10, marc marc wrote:
>
> I may have missed the last iD update announcement announcing this,
> what this transparent or discovered by chance?
>
This one, which includes heaps of changes!?
https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/pull/2231
Thanks
Graeme
That explains why I saw highway=footway being added to a platform in a
changeset today...
If adding highway=footway is such a good idea then let's have a
discussion and get it added to every platform, rather than this fake
"upgrade" tag feature in iD.
Maybe routers should treat platforms as
That explains why I saw highway=footway being added to a platform in a
changeset today...
If adding highway=footway is such a good idea then let's have a
discussion and get it added to every platform, rather than this fake
"upgrade" tag feature in iD.
Maybe routers should treat platforms as
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
Le 23.05.19 à 00:23, Michael Reichert a écrit :
> What is your opinion on this issue?
Thanks for the so documented message.
I didn't read all numbers but indeed, some plateform aren't
a footway
some are a path
some of indoor feature (more like a room=corridor)
it could be a good idea to improve
23 May 2019, 00:23 by osm...@michreichert.de:
> (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
32 matches
Mail list logo
