Can I suggest that we recommend the use of 'mode' tags (train/bus etc) with platforms which will make it much easier to down-stream software to represent the data without getting into relations etc? PeterIto 11:06, 3 April 2012 (BST)
- Do you mean bus=yes, tram=yes and so on? --Teddych 11:55, 3 April 2012 (BST)
- If we do this, we will soon face inconsistencies with the mode of the associated stop_postion. Dont like the idea of perpedually fixing that manually. We schould not repeat the same piece of information. Nzara 12:29, 7 April 2012 (BST)
- In the last version (9979) JOSM is asking me to add bus=yes platforms, though not mentioned here that should be so. Corecto what is it? Is not add or mode of transportation? AgusQui 25 March 2016
Assume that closed way is always an area
As pointed in this mailing list thread, a linear platform on a closed way does not exist in real world. Either it is supplying several stop areas or stations, in which case the way has to be split, or it is an area. I think we can safely assume that a closed way tagged as platform is always an area and therefore the tag area=yes is unnecessary in a modeling point-of-view. But the tag might be added as a workaround until rendering tools like mapnik/osm2pqsql support the correct assumption. --Pieren 16:05, 7 May 2012 (BST)
- I confirm this. --Teddych 17:28, 7 May 2012 (BST)
Electronic information signs
I would like to be able to tag public transport platforms as to whether they have electronic information signs or not (e.g. the signs that give you the next X buses/trains/trams to arrive, with arrival time/route). Does anyone have a good idea for a tag? I was thinking something like digital_signage=yes Spark 22:40, 1 October 2012 (BST)
- The most used tag at the moment is, apparently, ticker=yes/no. Others use departures_board=realtime/yes/no/*. Neither has yet been documented in the wiki, but both are in use and were discussed in 2010. Alv 09:26, 2 October 2012 (BST)
The name tag refers to the name of the station and not to the number or whatever of the platform. Look at the recommendation: it would be nonsense, if the comment were correct.
For the public transport stops in Styria (Austria), we have received a file which, among other data, contains the IFOPT-number of the stop (see Wikipedia). As discussed on the talk-transit mailing list, they will be added as ref:IFOPT. Should this be added to this page, so others might use it in the same way?
Platforms as multipolygons
I have seen multiple instances of platforms being mapped as multipolygons (e.g. refer to, , ). In my opinion, this makes sense if you see a platform as the area which is walkable by a human, and if there are e.g. buildings on the platform, these obviously don't belong to the platform area itself. The tag documentation however does not allow platforms to be mapped as a relation:
- IMHO multipolygons are generic things that can be used on every area. If this has to be added to all the possible keys, I don't know.
- What I would do (I refer to Teddych (talk) 10:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
): I would map Bahnsteig 7 and Bahnsteig 8 as seperate platform-areas. Then the building or whatever is usually in the middle between the two platforms and a multipolygon is not needed. --
- I see your point and have updated the page. --Teddych (talk) 10:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
railway=platform duplicates public_transport=platform.
Why railway=platform is 'strongly suggested' without any explanation? It is redundant with public_transport=platform, and wiki page railway=platform says it should no longer be used. I propose to remove this line. --Oligo (talk) 18:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- I oppose your proposed removal. The tag railway=platform has not been replaced by public_transport=platform. PTv2 proposal does not declare old platform tags as "old". They are still valid and part of PTv2. Also, there usecases where a railway platform does not serve public transport purposes but still exists and is in use, e.g. non-public railway infrastructure, emergency stops inside tunnels (e.g. Gotthard Base Tunnel), rarely served stations (like Klötze which is only served at one day per year).
- I will fix the wiki pages related to platforms in the following days. (The whole public transport section at the wiki is chaotic and sometimes outdated.) --Nakaner (talk) 18:27, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
So what definition are you suggesting? Set railway=platform for all railway platforms (public or privately owned, emergency, freight...) which may or may not be accessible to public? And add public_transport=platform to platforms currently used for receiving general public? --Oligo (talk) 21:06, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Yes. --Nakaner (talk) 21:12, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- No. public_transport=platform is an alternative way of tagging railway=platform. Some renderers still do not display public_transport=platform, therefore it is suggested to also add railway=platform. If a platform is public or not or if it is used or not is not relevant. By the way, it is also useful to add highway=footway to the way, so a pedestrian router can route via a platform. --Teddych (talk) 11:21, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
The recommendation highway=footway on platforms (railway=platform) to use, is in my opinion, wrong. Instead, should be foot=yes used as a right of use and Possibility. If the router does not evaluate this, they would have to be programmed accordingly. At highway=platform it is anyway impossible highway=footway to use. Not only, therefore, this recommendation would have to be completely deleted.
- The wiki page for highway=platform indicates that it should no longer be used. So I suppose that the intention is to change this tag to highway=footway when adding public_transport=platform. To prevent problems with routers, this footway should be connected with some other highway. --Biff (talk) 09:21, 20 June 2016 (UTC)