"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 <selfishseaho...@gmail.com > <mailto:selfishseaho...@gmail.com>> 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 <mailto: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