[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Walkingbus_stop

Jo winfixit at gmail.com
Sun May 6 09:21:07 UTC 2018


The foot tram routes definitely only if there are signs along the road,
indicating at what time the children are expected to be there.

the walking_bus seems like a school bus, but without an actual vehicle.
There are stops with times that the 'bus' passes there and there is a fixed
itinerary. I suppose these are organised by a specific school, to get the
children on time to that school. For these I think it makes sense to map
them. Not sure if the public transport scheme is the best for it, but at
least it's what fits best.

Polyglot

2018-05-06 10:53 GMT+02:00 Erkin Alp Güney <erkinalp9035 at gmail.com>:

> What about foot tram routes? Should they be mapped?
>
>
> 06-05-2018 11:51 tarihinde Selfish Seahorse yazdı:
> > 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.stucchi at 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.tagging at thorsten.engler.id.au>
> >> To: "'Tag discussion, strategy and related tools'"
> >> <tagging at 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 <erkinalp9035 at gmail.com>
> >> Sent: Sunday, 6 May 2018 00:59
> >> To: 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 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>
> >> Sent: Sunday, 6 May 2018 00:09
> >> To: 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
> >>
> >> 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>
> >> Sent: Saturday, 5 May 2018 23:28
> >> To: 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
> >>
> >> 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>
> >> *Sent:* Saturday, 5 May 2018 22:42
> >> *To:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
> >> <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>> 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
> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Tagging mailing list
> >> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Tagging mailing list
> >> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Tagging mailing list
> >> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Tagging mailing list
> >> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Tagging mailing list
> >> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ------------------------------
> >>
> >> Subject: Digest Footer
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Tagging mailing list
> >> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >>
> >>
> >> ------------------------------
> >>
> >> End of Tagging Digest, Vol 104, Issue 17
> >> ****************************************
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Tagging mailing list
> >> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Tagging mailing list
> > 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/20180506/e8dece83/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list