From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Available languages — Tag:railway=platform
Afrikaans Alemannisch aragonés asturianu azərbaycanca Bahasa Indonesia Bahasa Melayu Bân-lâm-gú Basa Jawa Baso Minangkabau bosanski brezhoneg català čeština dansk Deutsch eesti English español Esperanto estremeñu euskara français Frysk Gaeilge Gàidhlig galego Hausa hrvatski Igbo interlingua Interlingue isiXhosa isiZulu íslenska italiano Kiswahili Kreyòl ayisyen kréyòl gwadloupéyen kurdî latviešu Lëtzebuergesch lietuvių magyar Malagasy Malti Nederlands Nedersaksies norsk norsk nynorsk occitan Oromoo oʻzbekcha/ўзбекча Plattdüütsch polski português română shqip slovenčina slovenščina Soomaaliga suomi svenska Tiếng Việt Türkçe Vahcuengh vèneto Wolof Yorùbá Zazaki српски / srpski беларуская български қазақша македонски монгол русский тоҷикӣ українська Ελληνικά Հայերեն ქართული नेपाली मराठी हिन्दी অসমীয়া বাংলা ਪੰਜਾਬੀ ગુજરાતી ଓଡ଼ିଆ தமிழ் తెలుగు ಕನ್ನಡ മലയാളം සිංහල ไทย မြန်မာဘာသာ ລາວ ភាសាខ្មែរ ⵜⴰⵎⴰⵣⵉⵖⵜ አማርኛ 한국어 日本語 中文(简体)‎ 吴语 粵語 中文(繁體)‎ ייִדיש עברית اردو العربية پښتو سنڌي فارسی ދިވެހިބަސް

Accessibility for handicapped persons

Modern platforms have lines of different stones in the ground, so the entry to the bus can be easily found with a blindman's stick. (German: "Aufmerksamkeitsfeld"). 180px-Rillenpfl3.JPG

I don't know an English word for that. Any ideas?

--Lulu-Ann 13:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

"wikipedia:Tactile paving"? --Tordanik 16:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good to me :-) --Lulu-Ann 16:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
See: tactile paving --Lulu-Ann 10:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Now rendered in the blindmap. Lulu-Ann 08:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Rendering of platform

Currently (May 2009) platforms (as line or as area) don't appear to be rendered. Is that because the feature hasn't been implemented yet? --estman 18:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

As line now renders in both Mapnik and Osmarender, but area doesn't render in Mapnik (didn't check Osmarender). TRS-80 08:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

A part of?

Should a platform be a part of railway of a e.g. footway? This should definately be stated in the article... Vovkav 08:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's in the headline. Lulu-Ann
What do you mean with "a part of"? It's a way that is placed where the platform is (and doesn't need any other tags, except if you want to add details about the platform). The rails next to the platform are a separate way. --Tordanik 22:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

highway=platform? Why not bus=platform?

highway=platform is too general so I suggest bus=platform. logictheo 21:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

highway=platform is deprecated. Use public_transport=platform instead. --Teddych 18:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

area=yes ?

Why a closed way tagged with "railway=platform" needs an additional tag "area=yes" ? Unlike the "highway" tag, such polygon is unambiguous and therefore does not require additional tags just to compensage software applications gaps like in osm2pgsql/mapnik. See also the related discution on the mailing list here --Pieren 13:03, 25 April 2012 (BST)

Yes, see the related discussion and stop "wikifiddling". --NE2 00:43, 26 April 2012 (BST)
well, wikifiddling is from people who added "area=yes" without discussion on the international list (or point me to a link). What I say on the list is that the tag is used to compensate a failure in osm2pqsql software in the same way as people combined natural=water to waterway=riverbank until Mapnik supported the single tag 'riverbank' alone. It is not incorrect, it is not "tagging for the renderer" but it is just over-tagging to compensate mapnik issues. And nobody is contradicting this point until now. You can continue to add "area=yes" on your own if you like but don't recommend it on the documentation (or say honestly that it is to compensate a problem in osm2pgsql for mapnik). --Pieren 13:20, 26 April 2012 (BST)
The first version of this page had area=yes. --NE2 00:23, 27 April 2012 (BST)
I'm still waiting a valid argument for this unrequired tag or a link of a forum or mailing list where it was discussed (I searched but didn't find any). Saying that the workaround to fix a rendering issue is in the wiki since a while is not a valid argument (nobody is watching the dozen wiki pages and when we find a mistake, we fix it, independantly of its duration). --Pieren 13:40, 27 April 2012 (BST)
OK, the argument goes like this: The key railway is used for tagging both linear and area objects, the key-value pair railway=platform is used for tagging both linear and area objects as well. Furthermore, a closed way does NOT automatically mean that it's a polygon - the platform may form a loop shape e.g. around station building. In cases like this it is well established rule to assume that a way is polygon if and only if it has area=yes tag as well (actually, I'm not aware of any tagging scheme that would not honour this rule). --Xificurk 20:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
OK, show me an example where a closed loop is not a polygon and we will start to discuss of real mapping, not theory. --Pieren 00:22, 29 April 2012 (BST)
Since one week, nobody has been able to show a single real example of a linear railway platform on a closed way (with the same attributs like the name and ref in all directions). And even if we find one, a single one on the whole earth, I still don't understand why we should ask OSM data consumers and contributors to assume that a closed way taggged "railway=platform" is not an area. Like landuse. Like buildings. Like leisure=park. Etc... It is therefore the simple common sense and logic to admit that the closed way here "is" always an area and does not require a second tag. --Pieren 12:32, 1 May 2012 (BST)
Btw, if you think about it, it is impossible to have a railway platform surrounded on all sides by railways and all sides with the same platform name and ref and all sides linked to the same relation. --Pieren 13:11, 3 May 2012 (BST)
Yes, I don't know why, but I was thinking of public_transport=platform, instead of railway key... I still think it is better to require area=yes explicitly. It would be confusing not to require it for railway, but require it for highway=platform and public_transport=platform (which should be preferred way of tagging platforms now). --Xificurk 05:42, 04 May 2012 (UTC)
It is the same for bus platforms. Someone on the mailing list pointed out an example of a linear bus platform as a closed way. But after a quick check, it was not a single platform but several platforms for different bus stops making a loop with a kiosk in the middle (so splitting the way is required here since the platform name/ref is different on each side). Again, nobody is able to prove that the assumption of area on closed way is incorrect. The only remaining argument is that Mapnik will not render correctly which means that the tag is added for "rendering" only. But it is hard for some people to admit the truth. --Pieren 09:40, 4 May 2012 (BST)
From top of my head, I remember the bus station in Dornbirn, Austria - compare what's mapped in OSM [1] with aerial photos [2]. In this case, I wouldn't call the whole area a platform (as it is now tagged in OSM) - it is an ordinary pedestrian area with few shade trees, which happens to have covered public transport platform on its outline. Another tagging error are the four bus stops with different names - I don't recall any timetable using the names with cardinal directions (and you can check it yourself online). You could argue that it shouldn't be mapped as a single platform, but split into several smaller ones. And this would be probably a preferred final state, but mappers don't always have information detailed enough to map it this way, or simply don't want to spend time to map the details. The trick with splitting a closed way into several shorter (non-closed) ones is not specific to the platform case... it could be used for any other ambiguous (linear vs. area) tags, but that would be just replacing one hack (area=yes) with other one (splitting closed linear objects). And I stress again - this is just from top of my head, I bet that there are better examples. --Xificurk 22:45, 04 May 2012 (UTC)

Platform area and railway way

Should the railway way and the platform area share nodes, or should there be a gap between them? --C960657 (talk) 19:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

When drawing areas, the edge should be where the area really ends, so yes, there should be a gap. Only in the case of "routable" pedestrian areas touching a highway that runs along the edge we have been connecting the area to the highway so that the "routing connection" exists. Luckily, there won't be a need to walk from the platform onto the railway tracks, so in the case of a railway platform the gap does not hinder any use. Alv (talk) 06:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC)