[Tagging] Minibus routes

Jo winfixit at gmail.com
Thu Sep 8 06:18:54 UTC 2016


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 <miklcct at gmail.com>:

> 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
> > standard bus stops with both platform and stop_position and should be
> > included in the route relation. Another criteria to think of them as
> usual
> > PT stops is whether they are named or not.
> >
> > Éric
>
> 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 wait for the minibus along the route, whether
> there is
> a platform or not (especially in rural areas). When alighting the minibus,
> the
> passenger just calls out the place to the driver (e.g. "bus stop",
> "junction",
> "convenience store", "no. 23", etc.).
>
> Does that mean I should just map what exist on the ground, without
> regarding
> where the passengers enter / leave the minibus?
>
> Michael
>
> --
> Sent from KMail
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20160908/9f433dc7/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list