If I got you right, you map the platform as a public_transport=platform way and add a public_transport=platform node in addition?
Why not tag that node public_transport=stop then? This would allow for a clear distinction between platform and stop. On 30 March 2018 at 11:52, Jo <[email protected]> wrote: > When tagging platforms as ways, I wouldn't add details like name to them, as > the name would already be present on the platform node, which represents the > stop, both for rendering purposes as for being added to the route relations. > > I would only map a platform as a way, if there is tactile paving, or it's > higher than the rest of the sidewalk, or if it's clearly an island between > main road and cycleway. Before we had the bus_bay=right/left/both, I have > been adding platform ways in the shape of the bay. Not sure if that is the > best practice. As I got used to them, I think they render nicely, but it may > be exaggerated. They are not mapped for the purpose of adding them to the > route relations and there is clearly accommodations for the buses near such > stops. Most of them look like (narrower) sidewalks though. > > Jo > > > > 2018-03-30 11:06 GMT+02:00 Selfish Seahorse <[email protected]>: >> >> > 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" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Sent: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 19:55:34 +0200 >> >> From: "Selfish Seahorse" <[email protected]> >> >> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" >> >> <[email protected]> >> >> 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 >> > [email protected] >> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Tagging mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
