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