Asking for tactile_paving=* on public transport platforms with area=yes: Tactile paving tagging on areas discouraged?

[dreirund]

Ahoj,

StreetComplete (and SCEE ↗ as well) asks for tram/ railway platforms if there is a tactile paving.

It also asks this for platforms that are mapped as an area (area=yes).

The OSM wiki states that on areas there should not be a tactile_paving tag, but it instead should go on a way to be mapped seperately:

• Wiki page Key:tactile_paving says:

  Use on ways

  • […]
  • On platforms, highway=platform or man_made=pier. If the platform or pier is mapped as an area, only if you draw a separate way for the tactile lines. If the platform or pier is small and mapped as a way, add tactile_paving=yes to the way.
    […]

  Use on areas

  • tactile_paving=yes is not used on areas.

  So as I interpret it, not apply tactile_paving=yes to an object with area=yes, e.h. highway=platform with area=yes.

On the other hand, the OSM wiki pages about the platforms say nothing about distinguishing between a platform mapped as area or mapped as simple way:

• But the wiki page Tag:highway=platform:

  Additional tags:

  […]

  • tactile_paving=* - is there a guidance system for the blind?

  does not mention that the tag should only applied to the highway=platform object if it is not an area.

  (similar for Tag:railway=platform and Tag:public_transport=platform)

I asked about this discrepancy in the OpenStreetMap forum. An answer which was given there was against asking this question for area=yes platforms:

I’m not one of the authors of the proposal, but for background, I voluntarily worked in a blind school for 3 years in the past.

My assumption is that the reason, not to put tactile_paving=* on areas, is that the information is only really useful on ways, and the only interpretative information would be “there is some sort of tactile paving, somewhere here”, but now exactly showing where.

For platforms mapped as an area, I’d say the best option would be to have a highway=footway way in addition to the platform area, that can then be used for routing, both blind and non-blind people, much like it’s common for pedestrian roads mapped as areas.

I hereby notify you of this discrepancy, put this into discussion, and encourage to actually do the discussion in this OpenStreetMap forum thread and come back here after you could draw some "conclusion".

Regards!

[westnordost]

I don't really see a problem with this. Lately, it has become somewhat in fashion to map even the run of the mill bus stop as areas or lines. I think it should still be asked for those bus stops (and even more so for railway platforms which are usually mapped as areas) to ask for tactile paving.

[mnalis]

tactile_paving=yes is not used on areas.

Hmmm, yeah. OTOH, wiki seems to contradict itself, as both tactile_paving and tactile_paving=yes indicate in infobox it is OK to tag on the areas. Also, it seems to talk primarily about handling large areas, not smaller/thin ones like railway platform ("If you have a large area (like a market place) with indicator lines across, draw separate ways for the tactile paving and map on ways.")

An answer which was given there was against asking this question

One of them was, anyway. Others indicated the advantages too. I'll add my opinion there too, thanks for linking!

I think it should still be asked for those bus stops (and even more so for railway platforms which are usually mapped as areas) to ask for tactile paving.

It makes sense to me, and wiki indicates it is OK to tag it on areas.
And if tactile_paving=yes is useless for some some data consumers when tagged on an area, they can simple ignore it, and they're no worse than if the data was not recorded.

Also, mappers wishing to improve it could use OverPass to detect such cases (or some QA tools can be enhanced to check for it, or maybe they already do that) to micromap it with more details (e.g. add where exactly does the tactile paving way go inside that area), and if aerial imagery shows enough details if can be even done remotely.