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 <ajt1...@gmail.com> 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
