> 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" <cmu...@gmx.de> wrote: >> Sent: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 19:55:34 +0200 >> From: "Selfish Seahorse" <selfishseaho...@gmail.com> >> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" <tagging@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@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
