Dear all,
I'm looking for community consensus about minibus routes (public transport
routes which are operated by light passenger vehicles of roughly 8 to 20 seats
with no standing allowed in general). As of present, there are two kinds of
tagging for minibus routes:
A. route=minibus (~30 rout
2017-06-27 12:54 GMT+02:00 althio :
> So, I guess, yes: I suggest to use the same tags in different ways,
> according to the context.
>
This is fine --- as long as those tags are prefixed like in your examples
(i.e. a part is recurring, but the tag as a whole is distinct).
Using an implicit co
On 26 June 2017 at 14:25, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> 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?
Hi Martin,
If you really ask me how
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
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
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
+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
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
On 26-Jun-17 02:39 PM, John Willis wrote:
On Jun 26, 2017, at 1:02 AM, Colin Smale wrote:
It sounds to me like it is still a bus route. It may have a different "operator"
+1 the minibus is still a bus.
Here in my little town, they have the normal "bus" routes for people living in
the town,
> On Jun 26, 2017, at 1:02 AM, Colin Smale wrote:
>
> It sounds to me like it is still a bus route. It may have a different
> "operator"
+1 the minibus is still a bus.
Here in my little town, they have the normal "bus" routes for people living in
the town, going from rural bus stops down a
On 26-Jun-17 02:02 AM, Colin Smale wrote:
On 2017-06-25 16:51, Michael Tsang wrote:
Dear all,
Is there a generally accepted way to tag minibus routes? What I mean
is that,
the routes are not part of the standard bus route network, operated
with fixed
routing, and use light vehicles (less t
On 2017-06-25 16:51, Michael Tsang wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Is there a generally accepted way to tag minibus routes? What I mean is that,
> the routes are not part of the standard bus route network, operated with
> fixed
> routing, and use light vehicles (less than 20 passengers).
>
> I am tagg
Dear all,
Is there a generally accepted way to tag minibus routes? What I mean is that,
the routes are not part of the standard bus route network, operated with fixed
routing, and use light vehicles (less than 20 passengers).
I am tagging those routes currently with type=route route=minibus, bu
2016-09-08 15:39 GMT+02:00 Jo :
> Just tag the route relation in some way, or use roles to indicate which
> ways the minibus would stop anywhere.
+1, or you could split the route in parts and add a "stops anywhere on
demand tag" to some of them (and also regroup the subrelations into a
master
extending stop_position to way would make the whole concept of
stop_position meaningless. Very soon all ways woud be tagged stop_position
Just tag the route relation in some way, or use roles to indicate which
ways the minibus would stop anywhere.
Polyglot
2016-09-08 14:45 GMT+02:00 tomoya muram
2016-09-08 18:08 GMT+09:00 Felix Delattre :
>Inside the city center the bus would stop on dedicated bus stops, but once
they are out of the densely populated area, they stop on people's demand.
In Japan, there are such kind of bus route too.
So "on_demand=yes" flag on bus route relation is not e
2016-09-08 9:19 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :
>
> > - Are those built/maintained by the bus company or a related contractor ?
>
> it doesn't matter who builds or maintains the bus stop, the important
> thing is that the bus stops there. There could be a contractor building and
> maintaining them,
I agree here. What would a good tag be we can use to declare this?
bus_stops=on_demand?
In the given example I would not add the bus stop plattform to the bus
route relation! As they are not linked to the route, and there are only
for convenience for people waiting for the bus, but also for other
sent from a phone
> Il giorno 08 set 2016, alle ore 09:35, Jo ha scritto:
>
> on_demand is for a different kind of bus service.
>
> For those you have to call to the operator and tell from which stop you want
> to start and where you want to go. Then the bus travels from that stop to the
>
on_demand is for a different kind of bus service.
For those you have to call to the operator and tell from which stop you
want to start and where you want to go. Then the bus travels from that stop
to the other, sometimes picking up/dropping off other passengers, but
without a fixed itinerary.
Ha
sent from a phone
> Il giorno 08 set 2016, alle ore 08:32, Éric Gillet
> ha scritto:
>
> Finally, I don't think there is a a already-used tag to mean that the vehicle
> can stop "on-demand" in the type=route relations, but feel free to start or
> propose a new one.
there's the on_demand
sent from a phone
> Il giorno 08 set 2016, alle ore 08:32, Éric Gillet
> ha scritto:
>
> Two more questions that could settle whether they should be included :
> - Is there a timetable mentionning those platforms ?
in Rome there are no timetables for regular busses, but there are maps of t
sent from a phone
> Il giorno 08 set 2016, alle ore 03:30, Michael Tsang ha
> scritto:
>
> Does that mean I should just map what exist on the ground, without regarding
> where the passengers enter / leave the minibus?
seems like, yes. You wouldn't want to put a very long platform along the
2016-09-08 3:30 GMT+02:00 Michael Tsang :
> On some minibus routes, there are platforms (i.e. poles placed near the
> road)
> along the route but they are just for the convenience of the passengers.
> However, in most of the cases, these platforms have no legal effect and
> passengers can actually
Maybe we can have an extra tag on the route relation that the bus will stop
on demand of the passengers and you only add the stops which have physical
presence that are along the itinerary to the route relation.
Jo
2016-09-08 3:30 GMT+02:00 Michael Tsang :
> On Wednesday 07 September 2016 23:51:
On Wednesday 07 September 2016 23:51:12 Éric Gillet wrote:
> If there are platforms (marks on the ground, pole or shelter) made for
> waiting, entering and leaving the vehicle, they should be mapped as
> nodes/ways.
>
> In the case such platforms are used for minibuses, I think they are
> standar
2016-09-07 18:23 GMT+02:00 Michael Tsang :
> Minibuses have fixed route but not fixed stops (i.e. you can catch it
> anywhere
> along the route). When I map those routes, should I put in the platforms
> and
> route without putting in any stop position?
>
If there are platforms (marks on the groun
Dear all,
Minibuses have fixed route but not fixed stops (i.e. you can catch it anywhere
along the route). When I map those routes, should I put in the platforms and
route without putting in any stop position?
Michael
--
Sent from KMail
___
Tagging
28 matches
Mail list logo
