[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Walkingbus_stop

Lorenzo Stucchi lorenzo.stucchi at mail.polimi.it
Sun May 6 07:45:56 UTC 2018


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.tagging at thorsten.engler.id.au<mailto:osm.tagging at thorsten.engler.id.au>>
To: "'Tag discussion, strategy and related tools'"
<tagging at openstreetmap.org<mailto:tagging at openstreetmap.org>>
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Walkingbus_stop
Message-ID: <00ab01d3e4e1$e1575d50$a40617f0$@thorsten.engler.id.au<mailto:00ab01d3e4e1$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 <erkinalp9035 at gmail.com<mailto:erkinalp9035 at gmail.com>>
Sent: Sunday, 6 May 2018 00:59
To: tagging at openstreetmap.org<mailto:tagging at 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.tagging at thorsten.engler.id.au<mailto:osm.tagging at 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 <erkinalp9035 at gmail.com<mailto:erkinalp9035 at gmail.com>>
Sent: Sunday, 6 May 2018 00:09
To: tagging at openstreetmap.org<mailto:tagging at 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.tagging at thorsten.engler.id.au<mailto:osm.tagging at 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 <erkinalp9035 at gmail.com<mailto:erkinalp9035 at gmail.com>>
Sent: Saturday, 5 May 2018 23:28
To: tagging at openstreetmap.org<mailto:tagging at 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.tagging at thorsten.engler.id.au<mailto:osm.tagging at 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 <dieterdreist at gmail.com<mailto:dieterdreist at gmail.com>>
*Sent:* Saturday, 5 May 2018 22:42
*To:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
<tagging at openstreetmap.org<mailto:tagging at openstreetmap.org>>
*Subject:* Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC -
Walkingbus_stop




sent from a phone


On 4. May 2018, at 22:34, Johnparis <okosm at johnfreed.com<mailto:okosm at johnfreed.com>
<mailto:okosm at 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 at openstreetmap.org<mailto:Tagging at openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________
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<mailto:Tagging at openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
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<mailto:Tagging at openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging at openstreetmap.org<mailto:Tagging at openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging





------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging at openstreetmap.org<mailto:Tagging at openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


------------------------------

End of Tagging Digest, Vol 104, Issue 17
****************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20180506/f005a60f/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list