Talk:Tag:railway=platform edge
Non-standard multipolygon semantics
The documentation as currently written gives special semantics to multipolygons (beyond merely representing areas) by requiring that platform edges have to be relation members. I feel we should avoid these kinds of "side effects", as it means that multipolygons and other areas could no longer be parsed in a generic way by data consumers, and might no longer work the same way if we were to finally implement an area element in the API.
To remedy this, I suggest to only require that edges share nodes with the platform area. Multipolygon members would trivially fulfill this, so it wouldn't require changing how the platforms are actually being mapped. --Tordanik 18:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
More hassle than it's worth
Why not just split the platforms so they each have individual references? https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Vf7
This appears to be another example in OSM where the 'solution' to circumvent a 'problem'* is more hassle than fixing the original problem.
- * Actually it doesn't solve it, as indicated in the wiki. If a platform edge has multiple refs it still requires ambiguous tagging: ref=4;5 (all numbers, separated by semicolons). Quite ridiculous.--DaveF63 (talk) 21:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- I recommend this tag be flagged as deprecated. It adds no benefits that mapping individual platforms as closed ways provides, and it's more difficult to map.--DaveF63 (talk) 21:15, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Deprecation without a better replacement is not solving the problem. It's not much more difficult. I would argue drawing the entire island platform, then drawing the edge is easier than drawing two, or splitting it. (with JOSM's follow mode and parallel + split area tools in mind) --- Kovposch (talk) 04:13, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Boarding point and door position is a further detail someone can add. --- Kovposch (talk) 04:13, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- What problems do you find with Tag:railway=platform_edge#Island_Platform_with_Two_Track_References_Behind_Each_Other? --- Kovposch (talk) 04:14, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- I recommend this tag be flagged as deprecated. It adds no benefits that mapping individual platforms as closed ways provides, and it's more difficult to map.--DaveF63 (talk) 21:15, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- No, a platform is a platform (despite the common language of referring to platform edge as a "platform", elsewhere it would be "track"; boarding sections can sometimes be referred to as a sub-platform or sub-edge as well). A platform edge is a platform edge. Splitting an island platform arbitrarily down the center is unphysical and not based on reality. Platform edge doors are also very much a thing.
- Functionally, this allows attributes on the island to be shared as one. Routers can more simply guide users to that island. Features on the island can be queried as in one area.
- It is possible to have an island "platform" separated by walls in between, turning it to a pair of back-to-back side platform. This creates ambiguity on whether is one or two spaces, even if you require a barrier=* to be drawn between it. --- Kovposch (talk) 04:13, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Say how to deal with potential ref=3A;3B
ref=4;5 (all numbers, separated by semicolons)
OK, but let's say we are dealing with 3A and 3B instead. Well then I would just leave ref=3, putting the details into railway=platform_edge only. Jidanni (talk) 04:02, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
One dimensional platforms
Currently platforms are modeled as unclosed ways or areas
True. But then only the latter is mentioned:
The platform is mapped as an area
OK but let's say we have encountered the former, and don't wish to change it.
So maybe mention for unclosed way platforms one can use railway=platform edge in combination with ref:left=* and ref:right=*[1]. Jidanni (talk) 04:17, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
(https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/two-sided-railway-platforms/7316/18?u=jidanni says no.) Jidanni (talk) 18:45, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Clarification on "How to map"
Asking just to be sure.
In Poland, tracks/edges are numbered independently from the platforms, as can be seen for example here.
Such case is currently not covered neither by the wiki article text nor the example illustrations.
Should it mean that railway=platform gets ref=* number of the platform, and railway=platform_edge gets ref=* number of the track?
Regards, --Dzamper (talk) 22:16, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. Basically the documentation is a balance for compatibility, and reflects how the word "platform" is used for both the platform island and tracks of the edges in English.
But I disagree with Tag:railway=platform_edge#Cases_Where_You_Don't_Need_This_Tag example 2. That's a longitudinal case for the practice of splitting an island platform that this is trying to replace. There should only be 1 railway=platform + ref=1a;1b , and 2 railway=platform_edge .
—— Kovposch (talk) 11:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Tag is not recognized by Public Transport version 2
When used within PTv2 as a 'platform' PTv2 throws errors. My preference is to simply tag the platform area .. where there are 2 platforms - split them. Too easy? Warin61 (talk) 00:18, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
- Whether and how railway=platform_edge should be included in public_transport=stop_area and route=* is unrelated to how they should be drawn. That's partly PTv2 falling behind the times, and validators not deciding what to do with them.
>1k are already included as
platform , some being railway=platform_edge + public_transport=platform . A few as platform_edge , or empty role.
—— Kovposch (talk) 06:54, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Effective length
Is there a way to tag the effective length of a platform, i. e. the maximum length, a train could have, to approach a platform edge? --Mappalup (talk) 13:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)