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

[Dave F via Tagging]

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 quickly summarise: What Jo said.

DaveF

On 23/05/2019 23:18, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:

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:
https://www.google.com/maps/@-28.0841684,153.4150288,3a,75y,46.69h,72.55t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4hTF-eOoQp3yhcCIfyJelw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
is *not* a public_transport=platform, which iD defines highway=bus_stop as?

If not, then what is it?

Thanks

Graeme



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Snusmumriken]

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.  
> > 
> 
> Sorry, but do you mean that this: 
> https://www.google.com/maps/@-28.0841684,153.4150288,3a,75y,46.69h,72.55t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4hTF-eOoQp3yhcCIfyJelw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
> is not a public_transport=platform, which iD defines highway=bus_stop
> as? 
> 
> If not, then what is it?

I see a hedge, a bench, a sidewalk and a bus stop. But no platform.


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Nick Bolten]

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 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 since the PT v2 scheme appeared.
>
> Polyglot
>
> On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 12:20 AM 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.
>>>
>>
>> Sorry, but do you mean that this:
>> https://www.google.com/maps/@-28.0841684,153.4150288,3a,75y,46.69h,72.55t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4hTF-eOoQp3yhcCIfyJelw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
>> is *not* a public_transport=platform, which iD defines highway=bus_stop
>> as?
>>
>> If not, then what is it?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Graeme
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Jo]

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 since the PT v2 scheme appeared.

Polyglot

On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 12:20 AM 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.
>>
>
> Sorry, but do you mean that this:
> https://www.google.com/maps/@-28.0841684,153.4150288,3a,75y,46.69h,72.55t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4hTF-eOoQp3yhcCIfyJelw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
> is *not* a public_transport=platform, which iD defines highway=bus_stop
> as?
>
> If not, then what is it?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

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:
https://www.google.com/maps/@-28.0841684,153.4150288,3a,75y,46.69h,72.55t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4hTF-eOoQp3yhcCIfyJelw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
is *not* a public_transport=platform, which iD defines highway=bus_stop as?

If not, then what is it?

Thanks

Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Dave F via Tagging]

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 /doesn't/ include is... hypothetical features"

There is a call to greatly simplify the ever expanding, confusing public 
transport schema. This ID proposal only muddies the waters further.


DaveF

On 23/05/2019 18:49, Allroads wrote:

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
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Nick Bolten]

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 that
segment of infrastructure is and only choose one based on subjective
priorities: they should be able to clearly describe both simultaneously.

highway=platform effectively rules out highway=footway, hence the conflict.

I have never seen *=platform features consumed for any purpose other than
being a destination in routing software. Does anyone have examples of other
use cases?

On Thu, May 23, 2019, 10:50 AM Allroads  wrote:

> 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
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Nick Bolten]

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 like to know how, as a data consumer, I should reliably
> interpret existing platforms without the tag added by iD.
>
> Please excuse the bad wording. I meant that even if platforms had the
> same access restrictions as footways, they should not additionally be
> tagged highway=footway, because this were redundant. But as platforms
> often have different access restrictions (e.g. you cannot enter w/o a
> ticket), adding highway=footway is conflicting.
>
> Regards
>
> Markus
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Allroads]

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
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Tobias Zwick]

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  > 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 
> properties, for example, they are accessible both by pedestrians, but that 
> does not make a bus stop platform a footway.
> Giving an extreme example: Paved brownfields and parking lots are not 
> footways. But following the argument of the iD developers, they probably 
> should.
> 
> Tobias
> 
> On 23/05/2019 18:26, 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 added by iD.
> >
> > Taking a step back, can anyone name an instance where a linear transit 
> platform is not a footway?
> >
> > On Thu, May 23, 2019, 12:49 AM Markus    >> wrote:
> >
> >     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
> >
> >     ___
> >     Tagging mailing list
> >     Tagging@openstreetmap.org  
> >
> >     https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >
> 
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> 
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> 


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Markus]

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 platforms without the tag added by iD.

Please excuse the bad wording. I meant that even if platforms had the
same access restrictions as footways, they should not additionally be
tagged highway=footway, because this were redundant. But as platforms
often have different access restrictions (e.g. you cannot enter w/o a
ticket), adding highway=footway is conflicting.

Regards

Markus

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Nick Bolten]

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 example posted earlier is a good example where it seems an
awful lot like a footway and a platform at the same time. Perhaps the
platform should be a polygon and the path to and on it a footway?

On Thu, May 23, 2019, 9:56 AM Andy Townsend  wrote:

> 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 properties, for example, they are accessible both by pedestrians,
> but that does not make a bus stop platform a footway.
> > Giving an extreme example: Paved brownfields and parking lots are not
> footways. But following the argument of the iD developers, they probably
> should.
> >
> That's an excellent summary.  I can think of a few railway platforms
> that also form part of footpath routes, but must do not.  Having an
> editor automatically add "highway=footway" to all platforms devalues the
> work of all those who've used the tag explicitly in the past.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Andy
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Nick Bolten]

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. 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 by pedestrians,
> but that does not make a bus stop platform a footway.
> Giving an extreme example: Paved brownfields and parking lots are not
> footways. But following the argument of the iD developers, they probably
> should.
>
> Tobias
>
> On 23/05/2019 18:26, 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 added by iD.
> >
> > Taking a step back, can anyone name an instance where a linear transit
> platform is not a footway?
> >
> > On Thu, May 23, 2019, 12:49 AM Markus  > wrote:
> >
> > 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
> >
> > ___
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Nick Bolten]

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 footways?

On Thu, May 23, 2019, 9:35 AM Jmapb  wrote:

> 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 added by iD.
> >
> > Taking a step back, can anyone name an instance where a linear transit
> > platform is not a footway?
>
> This reads like a trick question.
>
> - "All platforms are, in some sense, footways."
> - "So we should tag them as footways!"
>
> or
>
> - "Here's an example of a weird platform that certainly isn't a footway!"
> - "Aha, interesting! Clearly this shows the necessity of tagging the
> *other* 100,000 platforms as footways, to show the difference!"
>
> J
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Andy Townsend]

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 properties, for example, 
they are accessible both by pedestrians, but that does not make a bus stop platform a footway.
Giving an extreme example: Paved brownfields and parking lots are not footways. 
But following the argument of the iD developers, they probably should.

That's an excellent summary.  I can think of a few railway platforms 
that also form part of footpath routes, but must do not.  Having an 
editor automatically add "highway=footway" to all platforms devalues the 
work of all those who've used the tag explicitly in the past.


Best Regards,

Andy



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Tobias Zwick]

"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 by pedestrians, but that does 
not make a bus stop platform a footway.
Giving an extreme example: Paved brownfields and parking lots are not footways. 
But following the argument of the iD developers, they probably should.

Tobias

On 23/05/2019 18:26, 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 added by iD.
> 
> Taking a step back, can anyone name an instance where a linear transit 
> platform is not a footway?
> 
> On Thu, May 23, 2019, 12:49 AM Markus  > wrote:
> 
> 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
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> 
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> 


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Jo]

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  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 added by iD.
>
> Taking a step back, can anyone name an instance where a linear transit
> platform is not a footway?
>
> On Thu, May 23, 2019, 12:49 AM Markus  wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[marc marc]

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.

improving this situation would be :

in a editor :
- if a highway crosses the polygon of a platform in the wanted 
direction, don't ask for access on it, use that highway
- otherwise, editor can ask the user: does a sign restrict access?
if so, enter the value access
- otherwise, do not add anything to osm, don't map the legislation
on each osm object !

for data consumer :
- use a default value depending on the country (in some countries you 
can walk, in other countries you can walk with a dismounted bike,
in others you can stay on your bike)
- a good well formated wiki page and/or a type=default relation help
to have access to the data need for a preprocessor.
- pooling contributions/code/rules to make a preprocessor that add
in legislation on osm objects of a pdb could make sense

Regards,
Marc
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Jmapb]

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 added by iD.

Taking a step back, can anyone name an instance where a linear transit
platform is not a footway?


This reads like a trick question.

- "All platforms are, in some sense, footways."
- "So we should tag them as footways!"

or

- "Here's an example of a weird platform that certainly isn't a footway!"
- "Aha, interesting! Clearly this shows the necessity of tagging the
*other* 100,000 platforms as footways, to show the difference!"

J


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Nick Bolten]

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 anyone name an instance where a linear transit
platform is not a footway?

On Thu, May 23, 2019, 12:49 AM Markus  wrote:

> 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
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Dave F via Tagging]

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 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

 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 changes that are not actually wanted (or are

better on judging what

is wanted by community).


a big difference is that in Josm there is a team, where different
opinions can be discussed, while in iD it is Bryan who has the whole
burden on his shoulders to decide alone about raised issues.

Cheers, Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Tobias Zwick]

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
> 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 changes that are not actually wanted (or are
>better on judging what 
>> is wanted by community).
>
>
>a big difference is that in Josm there is a team, where different
>opinions can be discussed, while in iD it is Bryan who has the whole
>burden on his shoulders to decide alone about raised issues.
>
>Cheers, Martin 
>___
>Tagging mailing list
>Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Markus]

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

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

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 changes that are not actually wanted (or are better 
> on judging what 
> is wanted by community).


a big difference is that in Josm there is a team, where different opinions can 
be discussed, while in iD it is Bryan who has the whole burden on his shoulders 
to decide alone about raised issues.

Cheers, Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Mateusz Konieczny]

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 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 changes that are not actually wanted (or are better on 
judging what 
is wanted by community).

I think it is fine to make such changes without checking every single one with 
wider community, 
as long as unwanted ones get rolled back.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Mateusz Konieczny]

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 
> > > 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
>

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

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
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Michael Booth]

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 routable on foot by default?

Another issue is that any platform mapped as an area will now render as 
a footway area, see: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/252199901


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:
typeptrptr pt+f r+f pt+r+f pt+pe r+pe pt+r+pe
nodes  1099931   203   8578   0  0 00   0
ways_linear 127899 24505 32096 3964 306970528   8
ways_area31652 19560 35729  265  15342   171   15  14
relations  818   614  31832   0 23120   1

US:
typeptr   ptr pt+f r+f pt+r+f pt+pe r+pe pt+r+pe
nodes70394   19   2420   0  0 00   0
ways_linear   1196 1023  1940  148  12361 20   0
ways_area  674 1303  2233   10   0 32 60   1
relations   10   11140   0  0 10   0

Germany:
typeptr  pt+r pt+f r+f pt+r+f pt+pe r+pe pt+r+pe
nodes   178981   15   1011   0  0 00   0
ways_linear  36427 1012  7143  663  41172 20   0
ways_area 7891  481  9823  184   1269485   9
relations  274   35  19681   0 16 40   1

France:
typeptr  pt+r pt+f r+f pt+r+f pt+pe r+pe pt+r+pe
nodes   1028218360   0  0 00   0
ways_linear  17179 1342  2609   46   3 29 00   0
ways_area 1173 1190  19415   1  2214   0
relations   12  104530   0  0 10   0

Great Britain:
typeptr   ptr pt+f r+f pt+r+f pt+pe r+pe pt+r+pe
nodes370789 20   0  0 00   0
ways_linear300 2412  1012   18   7 15 10   0
ways_area   59 2076  12430   2  0 30   2
relations3   31850   0  0 00   0

Poland:
typeptr   ptr pt+f r+f pt+r+f pt+pe r+pe pt+r+pe
nodes22073   11 90   0  0 00   0
ways_linear   9294  996   783  615   7 25 20   0
ways_area10327 2612  2189   42   0 24 62   1
relations   37   14370   0  0 00   0

Switzerland:
typeptr   ptr pt+f r+f pt+r+f pt+pe r+pe pt+r+pe
nodes 67273 00   0  0 00   0
ways_linear   5945  112   805  151   4  4 00   0
ways_area  376  114  18641   0  3 00   0
relations   119   2480   0  0 00   0

Italy:
typeptr   ptr pt+f r+f pt+r+f pt+pe r+pe pt+r+pe
nodes317375120   0  0 00   0
ways_linear   3902 1435   757   43   8  0 10   0
ways_area  190 1028   7141   0  0 30   0
relations9   21 70   0  0 00   0

Japan:
typeptr   ptr pt+f 

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

[Michael Booth]

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 routable on foot by default?

Another issue is that any platform mapped as an area will now render as 
a footway area, see: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/252199901


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:
typeptrptr pt+f r+f pt+r+f pt+pe r+pe pt+r+pe
nodes  1099931   203   8578   0  0 00   0
ways_linear 127899 24505 32096 3964 306970528   8
ways_area31652 19560 35729  265  15342   171   15  14
relations  818   614  31832   0 23120   1

US:
typeptr   ptr pt+f r+f pt+r+f pt+pe r+pe pt+r+pe
nodes70394   19   2420   0  0 00   0
ways_linear   1196 1023  1940  148  12361 20   0
ways_area  674 1303  2233   10   0 32 60   1
relations   10   11140   0  0 10   0

Germany:
typeptr  pt+r pt+f r+f pt+r+f pt+pe r+pe pt+r+pe
nodes   178981   15   1011   0  0 00   0
ways_linear  36427 1012  7143  663  41172 20   0
ways_area 7891  481  9823  184   1269485   9
relations  274   35  19681   0 16 40   1

France:
typeptr  pt+r pt+f r+f pt+r+f pt+pe r+pe pt+r+pe
nodes   1028218360   0  0 00   0
ways_linear  17179 1342  2609   46   3 29 00   0
ways_area 1173 1190  19415   1  2214   0
relations   12  104530   0  0 10   0

Great Britain:
typeptr   ptr pt+f r+f pt+r+f pt+pe r+pe pt+r+pe
nodes370789 20   0  0 00   0
ways_linear300 2412  1012   18   7 15 10   0
ways_area   59 2076  12430   2  0 30   2
relations3   31850   0  0 00   0

Poland:
typeptr   ptr pt+f r+f pt+r+f pt+pe r+pe pt+r+pe
nodes22073   11 90   0  0 00   0
ways_linear   9294  996   783  615   7 25 20   0
ways_area10327 2612  2189   42   0 24 62   1
relations   37   14370   0  0 00   0

Switzerland:
typeptr   ptr pt+f r+f pt+r+f pt+pe r+pe pt+r+pe
nodes 67273 00   0  0 00   0
ways_linear   5945  112   805  151   4  4 00   0
ways_area  376  114  18641   0  3 00   0
relations   119   2480   0  0 00   0

Italy:
typeptr   ptr pt+f r+f pt+r+f pt+pe r+pe pt+r+pe
nodes317375120   0  0 00   0
ways_linear   3902 1435   757   43   8  0 10   0
ways_area  190 1028   7141   0  0 30   0
relations9   21 70   0  0 00   0

Japan:
typeptr   ptr pt+f 

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

[Dave F via Tagging]

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:
typeptrptr pt+f r+f pt+r+f pt+pe r+pe pt+r+pe
nodes  1099931   203   8578   0  0 00   0
ways_linear 127899 24505 32096 3964 306970528   8
ways_area31652 19560 35729  265  15342   171   15  14
relations  818   614  31832   0 23120   1

US:
typeptr   ptr pt+f r+f pt+r+f pt+pe r+pe pt+r+pe
nodes70394   19   2420   0  0 00   0
ways_linear   1196 1023  1940  148  12361 20   0
ways_area  674 1303  2233   10   0 32 60   1
relations   10   11140   0  0 10   0

Germany:
typeptr  pt+r pt+f r+f pt+r+f pt+pe r+pe pt+r+pe
nodes   178981   15   1011   0  0 00   0
ways_linear  36427 1012  7143  663  41172 20   0
ways_area 7891  481  9823  184   1269485   9
relations  274   35  19681   0 16 40   1

France:
typeptr  pt+r pt+f r+f pt+r+f pt+pe r+pe pt+r+pe
nodes   1028218360   0  0 00   0
ways_linear  17179 1342  2609   46   3 29 00   0
ways_area 1173 1190  19415   1  2214   0
relations   12  104530   0  0 10   0

Great Britain:
typeptr   ptr pt+f r+f pt+r+f pt+pe r+pe pt+r+pe
nodes370789 20   0  0 00   0
ways_linear300 2412  1012   18   7 15 10   0
ways_area   59 2076  12430   2  0 30   2
relations3   31850   0  0 00   0

Poland:
typeptr   ptr pt+f r+f pt+r+f pt+pe r+pe pt+r+pe
nodes22073   11 90   0  0 00   0
ways_linear   9294  996   783  615   7 25 20   0
ways_area10327 2612  2189   42   0 24 62   1
relations   37   14370   0  0 00   0

Switzerland:
typeptr   ptr pt+f r+f pt+r+f pt+pe r+pe pt+r+pe
nodes 67273 00   0  0 00   0
ways_linear   5945  112   805  151   4  4 00   0
ways_area  376  114  18641   0  3 00   0
relations   119   2480   0  0 00   0

Italy:
typeptr   ptr pt+f r+f pt+r+f pt+pe r+pe pt+r+pe
nodes317375120   0  0 00   0
ways_linear   3902 1435   757   43   8  0 10   0
ways_area  190 1028   7141   0  0 30   0
relations9   21 70   0  0 00   0

Japan:
typeptr   ptr pt+f r+f pt+r+f pt+pe r+pe pt+r+pe
nodes371857130   0  0 00   0
ways_linear910  785  11109   1  1 00   0
ways_area  342 1295  22070   0  0 

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

[marc marc]

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 the routing in those case,
but not with an easy/wrong assertion "all plateform mean X access"
some may get a highway tag to avoid breaking the highway network
some have a highway through the plateform area (that the issue of having 
a linear+area network)

I may have missed the last iD update announcement announcing this,
what this transparent or discovered by chance?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Mateusz Konieczny]

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 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 
> 
>
I always though that platform should not interupt footways, but platform itself
has no need for footway tag on its area

See for example
https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=50.06524=19.95230#map=19/50.06524/19.95230
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/234100234#map=19/50.06524/19.95277
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging