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: <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> To: "'Tag discussion, strategy and related tools'" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Walkingbus_stop Message-ID: <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> 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 <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Sunday, 6 May 2018 00:59 To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> 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 [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Sunday, 6 May 2018 00:09 To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> 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 [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Saturday, 5 May 2018 23:28 To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> 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 [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> *Sent:* Saturday, 5 May 2018 22:42 *To:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> *Subject:* Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Walkingbus_stop sent from a phone On 4. May 2018, at 22:34, Johnparis <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]>> 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 [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ------------------------------ Subject: Digest Footer _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ------------------------------ End of Tagging Digest, Vol 104, Issue 17 ****************************************
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
