Hi, Like Martin, I think the public transport scheme should not be used here, because a walking bus is neither a form of transport nor is it really public.
On 6 May 2018 at 09:45, Lorenzo Stucchi <lorenzo.stuc...@mail.polimi.it> wrote: > Hi, > I’m sorry for the error that I made using the old Public Transport scheme, > so according to what was proposed before I correct the page proposing the > tag: walikingbus=yes to be used with public_transport=platform like was now > proposed in the page > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Walkingbus_stop > > Thanks and sorry again for my mistake > Hi, > LorenzoStucchi > > Date: Sun, 6 May 2018 12:28:09 +1000 > From: <osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au> > To: "'Tag discussion, strategy and related tools'" > <tagging@openstreetmap.org> > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Walkingbus_stop > Message-ID: <00ab01d3e4e1$e1575d50$a40617f0$@thorsten.engler.id.au> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Well, but based on your description, these are not planned routes in any > way. They are purely transient emergent behaviour based on the fact that a > lot of people want to move between these two points, and this is the obvious > way to go. > > Take the people away, and the phenomenon disappears. This is not something > that does not exist on its own. > > A bus route, a foot or hiking route, or a walking bus route on the other > hand all exist even in the absence of people There are stops with signs, > guiding signs, brochures showing the route... The route is planned and > documented, and (at least till someone changes the planning) operate and > exist even in the absence of people using them. > > The only thing that exist of what you describe is the environment that > promotes this particular emergent behaviour, like the pedestrian zone sign, > and these can and should obviously be mapped. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Erkin Alp Güney <erkinalp9...@gmail.com> > Sent: Sunday, 6 May 2018 00:59 > To: tagging@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Walkingbus_stop > > Not really transient and some routes can be over 500m in length. For > example, in Karşıyaka, more than 100 people/min/sq-m walks following > Bahriye Üçok Boulevard (western sidewalk only) and Kemalpaşa Avenue > (pedestrianised during the day and evening, pedestrian priority > otherwise, marked by a pedestrian zone sign) between Karşıyaka > Underground Car Parking and "Hergele Meydanı" (all comers' square). > > > 05-05-2018 17:51 tarihinde osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au yazdı: > > If they are unmarked on the ground, are they documented somewhere? > > Or is it simply a case of "this is a common route a lot of people > > walk > > during certain times as there is a strong flow of people from A to > > B > > and this is the most commonly used route"? (In which case they > > aren't > > really something that exists as an entity of it's own and are only > > a > > transient event, though maybe a commonly reoccurring one.) > > In either case, it doesn't sound like a "walking bus" at all. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Erkin Alp Güney <erkinalp9...@gmail.com> > Sent: Sunday, 6 May 2018 00:09 > To: tagging@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Walkingbus_stop > > No, foot tram routes are unmarked but you can easily join one by > following the crowd. Normal foot routes have guiding signs. > > > 05-05-2018 17:05 tarihinde osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au > > yazdı: > > Without a "driver", fixed "stops" and a defined schedule, that > > sounds more like what's currently already mapped using > > route=foot > > relations? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Erkin Alp Güney <erkinalp9...@gmail.com> > Sent: Saturday, 5 May 2018 23:28 > To: tagging@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Walkingbus_stop > > We also have walking bus routes in Turkey but without drivers. > > We > > call them "tabanvay", foot tram. You can have very crowded > > walking > > bus routes in peak times, especially in pedestrian road > > networks. > > > > 05-05-2018 15:59 tarihinde osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au > > yazdı: > > If there are actual poles and stop signs, you can only “board” > > at > > these places and at specific times, and the “driver” stays > > with > > the > > group from the first to the last stop, then yeah, I can see > > this > > as > > being very different from a “school crossing guard” which > > generally > > stays at one specific crossing and controls the traffic there. > > And > > under these conditions, I think the term “platform” as it is > > used > > in > > PTv2 does apply to the position of the poles. > > > > *From:*Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> > *Sent:* Saturday, 5 May 2018 22:42 > *To:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools > <tagging@openstreetmap.org> > *Subject:* Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - > > Walkingbus_stop > > > > > > sent from a phone > > > On 4. May 2018, at 22:34, Johnparis <ok...@johnfreed.com > <mailto:ok...@johnfreed.com>> wrote: > > Please DO follow Thorsten's suggestion and follow PTv2, > > mapping > > the stops as nodes alongside the street/way (not on it) in > > the > > proper direction. Tag each one: > > walking_bus=yes > > public_transport=platform > > > > > > is walking really a kind of “public transport”? Are we going > > to > > tag > > places as public transport platforms where people are waiting > > for > > someone else to accompany them for walking somewhere? > > > > To me “walking bus” seems just a new buzzword for a service > > that > > has > > been in existence for a long time (school crossing guards) and > > that > > was never considered public transport until someone proclaimed > > it > > could be seen as kind of “bus” but without a vehicle ;-) > > > > I don’t think it shouldn’t be tagged, but I don’t see it as > > public > > transport either, particularly I don’t believe we should use > > the > > term > > platform in context of this kind of service > > > > > > cheers, > > Martin > > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > > ------------------------------ > > End of Tagging Digest, Vol 104, Issue 17 > **************************************** > > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
