I tag the platform as NODE with: highway=bus_stop public_transport=platform bus=yes name= ref= route_ref= zone= ...
Because nodes have 1 pair of coordinates, so convenient for direct comparison with external sources and t's easy to draw text around it with an offset in MapCSS in JOSM, If there is a platform, I map it as a way or an area: highway=platform Only the platform nodes are added to the route relations. 2018-03-30 13:52 GMT+02:00 Selfish Seahorse <selfishseaho...@gmail.com>: > If I got you right, you map the platform as a > public_transport=platform way and add a public_transport=platform node > in addition? > > Why not tag that node public_transport=stop then? This would allow for > a clear distinction between platform and stop. > > > On 30 March 2018 at 11:52, Jo <winfi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > When tagging platforms as ways, I wouldn't add details like name to > them, as > > the name would already be present on the platform node, which represents > the > > stop, both for rendering purposes as for being added to the route > relations. > > > > I would only map a platform as a way, if there is tactile paving, or it's > > higher than the rest of the sidewalk, or if it's clearly an island > between > > main road and cycleway. Before we had the bus_bay=right/left/both, I have > > been adding platform ways in the shape of the bay. Not sure if that is > the > > best practice. As I got used to them, I think they render nicely, but it > may > > be exaggerated. They are not mapped for the purpose of adding them to the > > route relations and there is clearly accommodations for the buses near > such > > stops. Most of them look like (narrower) sidewalks though. > > > > Jo > > > > > > > > 2018-03-30 11:06 GMT+02:00 Selfish Seahorse <selfishseaho...@gmail.com>: > >> > >> > 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. > >> > >> I wouldn't call a sidewalk a platform, especially because the waiting > >> area on the sidewalk often isn't clearly delimited. Furthermore, > >> double tagging doesn't work if the sidewalk is called 'X Road' and the > >> bus stop 'Y Square'. > >> > >> > >> On 29 March 2018 at 23:17, "Christian Müller" <cmu...@gmx.de> wrote: > >> >> 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 > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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
