> 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
