I don't think a tag is needed for "wild" platforms. As already noted, public_transport=platform applies to nodes already. And shelter=yes/no or bench=yes/no can be added if that's the infrastructure Christian means. (Not clear to me what exactly a "wild" platform is.)
And if a tag is needed, stop vs stop_position would surely cause confusion! As has been noted elsewhere, public_transport=platform was probably not an ideal word choice, perhaps wait_area or some such would have been better, but it is what it is. On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 8:45 AM, Selfish Seahorse <selfishseaho...@gmail.com > wrote: > > If this is a problem, because the tag should ideally discrimnate built > structure features, then either > > > > a) find a new tag for wild platforms > > Maybe public_transport=stop? > > > On 29 March 2018 at 16:30, "Christian Müller" <cmu...@gmx.de> wrote: > > Mapping public transport in detail was in part started to aid impaired > > people and people with diminished mobility. The stop_position is an > attempt > > to tell for large/long platforms at which subarea of the platform you can > > expect a public service vehicle to have an entrance (regardless of its > > length, that may change with time of day or when the schedule of the > company > > is overhauled). > > > > The platform itself will not give you any clues which position to route a > > user to so that him/her readjusting position on that platform is minimal > > once the vehicle arrived and is ready for boarding. > > > > If the platform exists, mapping it is more important than the > stop_position, > > but the latter gives additional info _especially_ for lengthy or large > > platforms. > > > > ----- > > > > There have been complaints about added pseudo-platforms in the data. > This > > situation stems from the fact, that platforms are missing on ground (for > > lack of money, political decisions or because the halt is seen as a > > temporary one). _Nevertheless_, public transport users _do_ and _have_ > to > > use parts of the area around the PT-pole as a platform. In this case the > > tag is not used to map a built structure, but how the space is > effectively > > used on ground. If this is a problem, because the tag should ideally > > discrimnate built structure features, then either > > > > a) find a new tag for wild platforms > > b) allow the platform tag on nodes and use a single node only where a > built > > platform structure does not exist > > > > may be an solution. > > > > > > Greetings > > cmuelle8 > > > > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 29. März 2018 um 13:36 Uhr > > Von: Jo <winfi...@gmail.com> > > An: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" < > tagging@openstreetmap.org> > > Betreff: Re: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms > > That's what I would like to see happen. Last year I created a wiki page > > about it (with screenshots): > > > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JOSM/Plugins/PT_ > Assistant/Mapping_Public_Transport_with_JOSM#Downloading_data > > > > Polyglot > > > > 2018-03-29 13:09 GMT+02:00 Selfish Seahorse <selfishseaho...@gmail.com>: > >> > >> > Otherwise, public_transport=stop_position could be abandoned, which > >> > would make PTv2 tagging a lot easier and more time-efficient. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Tagging mailing list > > 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
