[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Public Transport v2 Vehicle Type "coach"

[Mikolai-Alexander Gütschow]

Seeing your comments on the Talkpage, I agree about the difficulty of 
classifying all the cases clearly into whether route=bus or route=coach. 
Now, I've looked again at the Oxomoa scheme proposal which already 
suggested an idea to differentiate between different bus route types by 
using the key "bus". Are there any arguments against this approach? We 
should only discuss possible values such as long_distance or intercity, 
suburban, urban, school, shuttle, express, train_replacement etc.

Comments are very welcome on 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Public_Transport_v2_Vehicle_Type_%22coach%22

Greets!



El 04/10/17 a las 03:02, Colin Smale escribió:
>
> Hi,
>
> I have commented on the Talk page: 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Public_Transport_v2_Vehicle_Type_%22coach%22
>
> In summary, I am not in favour of this proposal as it stands, as it is 
> insufficiently distinct from the existing bus stuff.
>
> --colin
>
>
> On 2017-10-04 05:36, Mikolai-Alexander Gütschow wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I've elaborated a proposal for the route=coach tag according to the 
>> Public Transport Scheme v2 and as already in use in some cases.
>>
>> See 
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Public_Transport_v2_Vehicle_Type_%22coach%22
>>
>> The proposal adds the possibility to differentiate between city bus 
>> and coach routes.
>>
>> Please comment!
>>
>> Ialokim
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging at openstreetmap.org>
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20171004/f93c31a5/attachment-0001.html>