[Tagging] Railway station tagging check

I just re-tagged a small rural station I created, after mapping the surrounding area better. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/36.27303/139.28168 - the railway=station is an area used by the station, both “inside the fence” for t

Re: [Tagging] minibus routes

Javbw > On Jun 26, 2017, at 6:30 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > uses regular public transport buses Although the idea of defining "tourist route vs regular service" is important, I think this is more about moving unconventional "public" transportation vehicles that use roads ou

Re: [Tagging] minibus routes

2017-06-26 10:05 GMT+02:00 althio : > + bus=minibus bus, according to the wiki, is a legal access restriction. Or do you suggest to use the same tags in different ways, according to the context? Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstr

Re: [Tagging] minibus routes

On 26-Jun-17 05:53 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Maybe a different kind of route type or subtype wouldn't be bad for such tourist sightseeing hop on hop off bus routes, because they have nothing to do with "public transport " in the sense that locals won't use them ever for simply moving from

[Tagging] tourist sightseeing bus routes [WAS: minibus routes]

On 26 June 2017 at 06:39, John Willis wrote: > Here in my little town, they have the normal "bus" routes for people living > in the town, going from rural bus stops down and around the train stations > and schools. > > Then the city tourism board operates these slow, open-air, electric "busses"

Re: [Tagging] minibus routes

+1 to all that, this looks good to me: type=route + route=bus + bus=minibus + network=* + operator=* -- althio ps: splitting the discussion about sightseeing/tourist On 26 June 2017 at 06:39, John Willis wrote: > > >> On Jun 26, 2017, at 1:02 AM, Colin Smale wrote: >> >> It sounds to me like

Re: [Tagging] minibus routes

sent from a phone > On 26. Jun 2017, at 07:18, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > For the slow moving ... would a maxspeed=* on the relation be usefull? no, maxspeed is a legal restriction. Also, you wouldn't find an actual number to put there, that is verifiable. You could use somethi