Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Walkingbus_stop

[Simon Poole]

Just as a further data point, we had this discussion in 2016 here
http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/pipermail/talk-ch/2016-October/003827.html


Am 20.05.2018 um 10:38 schrieb Selfish Seahorse:
> On 19 May 2018 at 21:20, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
>> route=walking_bus?
>> that’s duck tagging, simple and concise, and is easy to understand for who 
>> knows the concept.
> +1
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Walkingbus_stop

[Selfish Seahorse]

On 19 May 2018 at 21:20, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
> route=walking_bus?
> that’s duck tagging, simple and concise, and is easy to understand for who 
> knows the concept.

+1

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Walkingbus_stop

[Jo]

obviously  Quack, quack

2018-05-19 22:15 GMT+02:00 Paul Allen :

> On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 9:06 PM, marc marc 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> node public_transport=plateform for the waiting area
>> +
>> relation type=route route=walking_bus
>> yes duck tagging... it is a PTv2 :)
>>
>
> So if it walks like a bus, looks like a bus and quacks like a bus then
> it's a duck?
>
> --
> Paul
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Walkingbus_stop

[Paul Allen]

On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 9:06 PM, marc marc 
wrote:

>
> node public_transport=plateform for the waiting area
> +
> relation type=route route=walking_bus
> yes duck tagging... it is a PTv2 :)
>

So if it walks like a bus, looks like a bus and quacks like a bus then it's
a duck?

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Walkingbus_stop

[marc marc]

Le 19. 05. 18 à 21:20, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit :
>> On 19. May 2018, at 19:04, Jo  wrote:
>>
>> OTOH mapping the routes as route=foot/hiking/walking also doesn't fit, as 
>> such route relations don't have the concept of 'stops' with a time table.
> 
> 
> route=walking_bus?
> that’s duck tagging, simple and concise, and is easy to understand for who 
> knows the concept.

that is the first propal you seems to previously disagree !
node public_transport=plateform for the waiting area
+
relation type=route route=walking_bus
yes duck tagging... it is a PTv2 :)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Walkingbus_stop

[Jo]

yes, that sounds fine.

2018-05-19 21:20 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 19. May 2018, at 19:04, Jo  wrote:
> >
> > OTOH mapping the routes as route=foot/hiking/walking also doesn't fit,
> as such route relations don't have the concept of 'stops' with a time table.
>
>
> route=walking_bus?
> that’s duck tagging, simple and concise, and is easy to understand for who
> knows the concept.
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Walkingbus_stop

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 19. May 2018, at 19:04, Jo  wrote:
> 
> OTOH mapping the routes as route=foot/hiking/walking also doesn't fit, as 
> such route relations don't have the concept of 'stops' with a time table.


route=walking_bus?
that’s duck tagging, simple and concise, and is easy to understand for who 
knows the concept.

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Walkingbus_stop

[Tom Pfeifer]

On 19.05.2018 16:56, marc marc wrote:

if an operator decided to replace a diesel engine with a bicycle
crankset for each passenger, would that stop being a PT?


Yes - the operator would have to serve beer, and we'd have to tag them
tourism=attraction + highway=obstacle.

https://luxeadventuretraveler.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Jdombs-Travels-Beer-Bike-Berlin-1.jpg

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Walkingbus_stop

[Jo]

OTOH mapping the routes as route=foot/hiking/walking also doesn't fit, as
such route relations don't have the concept of 'stops' with a time table.

Polyglot

2018-05-19 18:44 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 19. May 2018, at 16:56, marc marc  wrote:
> >
> > access limited to a certain audience ? some are, others are not.
>
>
> If it isn’t transportation for the general public I would not map it as
> public transport.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Walkingbus_stop

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 19. May 2018, at 16:56, marc marc  wrote:
> 
> access limited to a certain audience ? some are, others are not.


If it isn’t transportation for the general public I would not map it as public 
transport.


Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Walkingbus_stop

[marc marc]

Le 19. 05. 18 à 15:54, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit :
>> On 19. May 2018, at 00:19, marc marc  wrote:
>>
>> but the same passengers waiting at the same place for the same driver
>> with a bus is a valid public_transport=platform
>> the same apply to the route where a relation type=route route=foot
>> and all other PTv2 tag look like good imho.
> 
> everybody can use a bus, but pedibus is only for pupils.

You're both reviewing criteria that aren't relevant to differentiating 
between buses and walking buses.

fee ? some PTs are free and some not -> use fee key for that.

access limited to a certain audience ? some are, others are not.
some "diesel buses" are restricted to pupils, some not (as Jo said for 
Belgium).
some "walking buses" are restricted to pupils, some not (the one I known 
is not restricted : pupils, older brother, parent, grandparent, other 
person, everybody can join, the pedibus and "diesel powered bus" have 
the same criteria.
If it's not the case in your area and you take care of that, put an 
access tag or min_age or max_height or whatever on the relation.

the only diff between a diesel bus and a pedibus is the fact it's 
passive (sit down and wait until you reach your destination) or active 
(use human propulsion)

if an operator decided to replace a diesel engine with a bicycle 
crankset for each passenger, would that stop being a PT?
and how would that change the public_transport=platform ? in no way!
if that happens, the right schema to differentiate them would no doubt 
be to creake a key like propulsion:source=diesel|human
and certainly not saying that the public_transport=plateform is no 
longer a public_transport=plateform due the power source change of the 
relation

Regards,
Marc
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Walkingbus_stop

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 19. May 2018, at 00:19, marc marc  wrote:
> 
> but the same passengers waiting at the same place for the same driver
> with a bus is a valid public_transport=platform
> the same apply to the route where a relation type=route route=foot
> and all other PTv2 tag look like good imho.


They are not exactly the same people, everybody can use a bus, but pedibus is 
only for pupils.

You don’t need to be public transport in order to be a route, a route relation 
should still be created 


cheers,
Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Walkingbus_stop

[osm.tagging]

As I said, it has poles, areas people wait, a fixed route, a repeating 
timetable, there is a "driver" and it's purpose is specifically to transport 
people from one location to another. The fact that you have to put in personal 
effort (walking) during the transportation within this framework doesn't make 
it less of a "transport" in my opinion.

And if the "guided walking tours" have all the same features, and their primary 
purpose is to movement from one location to another, then, yes. If it's a hike 
that's primarily about the activity of walking or looking at things, and you 
end up in the same location again, then no.

> -Original Message-
> From: Andrew Davidson 
> Sent: Saturday, 19 May 2018 10:41
> To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Walkingbus_stop
> 
> On 19/05/18 09:47, osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au wrote:
> > I agree that it definitely is "transport" and that it has all the
> features (pole, waiting area, timetable, fixed route) that make it
> very suitable to map as public_transport.
> >
> 
> Huh? I would have thought that a key requirement would be some form
> of transport. What's the next thing we're going to be calling
> public transport? Guided walking tours?
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Walkingbus_stop

[Andrew Davidson]

On 19/05/18 09:47, osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au wrote:

I agree that it definitely is "transport" and that it has all the features 
(pole, waiting area, timetable, fixed route) that make it very suitable to map as 
public_transport.



Huh? I would have thought that a key requirement would be some form of 
transport. What's the next thing we're going to be calling public 
transport? Guided walking tours?


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Walkingbus_stop

[osm.tagging]

I agree that it definitely is "transport" and that it has all the features 
(pole, waiting area, timetable, fixed route) that make it very suitable to map 
as public_transport.

The only thing we have to decide upon is how "public" a public_transport must 
be.

Does it have to be available to all members of the public that are willing to 
pay for it? Or is it acceptable to map something as public_transport if there 
is an additional requirement (being a student at a particular school in this 
case)? Are there any other things mapped as public_transport already that have 
additional conditions for usage?

Personally, I'm fine with still considering this as public_transport, and hence 
map a walking bus as such. We might just have to come up with a tag that allows 
specifying what additional restrictions apply for potential passengers.

> -Original Message-
> From: marc marc 
> Sent: Saturday, 19 May 2018 08:19
> To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Walkingbus_stop
> 
> Le 18. 05. 18 à 17:14, Jo a écrit :
> >
> > 2018-05-18 17:11 GMT+02:00 Lorenzo Stucchi
> >
> > After the discussion about that a walking school bus is not a
> > public transport, so the proposal is to change the tag to
> amenity,
> > like for taxi rank.
> >
> >
> >
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Walkingbus_st
> op
> >
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Walkingbus_s
> top
> > >
> >
> > Do I understand correctly that you are not planning to map the
> itineraries?
> >
> 
> I don't understand why it's not a PT.
> Of course no vehicule is used.
> but with some stop (including a pole and "people waiting there"),
> timetable, itinery, and a "walk driver", imho it's the same as if
> was a bus route.
> Some use the word "pédibus" (pédi = by foot)
> 
> wiki said :
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:public_transport%3Dplatform
> Use public_transport=platform to identify the places where
> passengers wait for public transport of any type
> 
> imho I don't see why the place where 20 childeren waiting the "walk
> driver" to travel with him is not a public_transport=platform but
> the same passengers waiting at the same place for the same driver
> with a bus is a valid public_transport=platform the same apply to
> the route where a relation type=route route=foot and all other PTv2
> tag look like good imho.
> 
> Lorenzo wait more than one reply before changing the propal :)
> 
> Regards,
> MArc
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Walkingbus_stop

[marc marc]

Le 18. 05. 18 à 17:14, Jo a écrit :
> 
> 2018-05-18 17:11 GMT+02:00 Lorenzo Stucchi 
> 
> After the discussion about that a walking school bus is not a 
> public transport, so the proposal is to change the tag to amenity,
> like for taxi rank.
> 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Walkingbus_stop 
> 
> 
> Do I understand correctly that you are not planning to map the itineraries?
> 

I don't understand why it's not a PT.
Of course no vehicule is used.
but with some stop (including a pole and "people waiting there"), 
timetable, itinery, and a "walk driver", imho it's the same as if was a 
bus route.
Some use the word "pédibus" (pédi = by foot)

wiki said :
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:public_transport%3Dplatform
Use public_transport=platform to identify the places where passengers 
wait for public transport of any type

imho I don't see why the place where 20 childeren waiting the "walk 
driver" to travel with him is not a public_transport=platform
but the same passengers waiting at the same place for the same driver
with a bus is a valid public_transport=platform
the same apply to the route where a relation type=route route=foot
and all other PTv2 tag look like good imho.

Lorenzo wait more than one reply before changing the propal :)

Regards,
MArc
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Walkingbus_stop

[Jo]

2018-05-18 17:11 GMT+02:00 Lorenzo Stucchi :

> Hi,
>
> After the discussion about that a walking school bus is not a  public
> transport, so the proposal is to change the tag to amenity, like for taxi
> rank.
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Walkingbus_stop
>
>
Do I understand correctly that you are not planning to map the itineraries?

Polyglot
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Walkingbus_stop

[Lorenzo Stucchi]

Hi,

After the discussion about that a walking school bus is not a public transport, 
so the proposal is to change the tag to amenity, like for taxi rank.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Walkingbus_stop

Hi,
Lorenzo Stucchi

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Walkingbus_stop

[Jo]

Here in Belgium the public transport operator has school services that run
once or twice in each direction per school day. Anyone with a valid ticket
can take them though. So no exclusivity for school children.

There are other buses, organised by the schools themselves, which I also
wouldn't map. But those also don't have stops marked on the streets. They
simply go and pick up the children near their homes. They are mostly for
children with special needs though.

Jo

2018-05-06 23:28 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :

>
>
> 2018-05-06 11:21 GMT+02:00 Jo :
>
>> 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.
>>
>
>
> I agree it is like a school bus without the bus, and school buses aren't
> public transport either.
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Walkingbus_stop

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2018-05-06 11:21 GMT+02:00 Jo :

> 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.
>


I agree it is like a school bus without the bus, and school buses aren't
public transport either.

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Walkingbus_stop

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 4. May 2018, at 17:21,  
>  wrote:
> 
> Also, public_transport=platform is only valid with at least one  transport 
> type specific tag, e.g. bus=yes or tram=yes. So there should probably be a 
> walkingbus=yes or walking_bus=yes tag on that. (Whichever is chosen, it 
> should be the same string that’s used for the route relation


while it may be a public service, I don’t think it is public transport because 
it serves only pupils, not the general public.

cheers,
Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Walkingbus_stop

[Jo]

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 :

> 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 
> 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: 
> >> To: "'Tag discussion, strategy and related tools'"
> >> 
> >> 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 
> >> Sent: Sunday, 6 May 2018 00:59
> >> To: tagging@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.tagg...@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 
> >> Sent: Sunday, 6 May 2018 00:09
> >> To: tagging@openstree

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Walkingbus_stop

[Selfish Seahorse]

I don't mean that they shouldn't be mapped but that I'd rather not use
the public transport scheme for it.

On 6 May 2018 at 10:53, Erkin Alp Güney  wrote:
> 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  
>> 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: 
>>> To: "'Tag discussion, strategy and related tools'"
>>> 
>>> 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 
>>> Sent: Sunday, 6 May 2018 00:59
>>> To: tagging@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.tagg...@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 
>>> Sent: Sunday, 6 May 2018 00:09
>>> To: tagging@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.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au
>>>
>>> yazdı:
>>>
>>> Without a "driver", fixed "stops" and a defined schedule, that
>>>
>>> sounds more like what's

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Walkingbus_stop

[Erkin Alp Güney]

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  
> 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: 
>> To: "'Tag discussion, strategy and related tools'"
>> 
>> 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 
>> Sent: Sunday, 6 May 2018 00:59
>> To: tagging@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.tagg...@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 
>> Sent: Sunday, 6 May 2018 00:09
>> To: tagging@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.tagg...@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 
>> Sent: Saturday, 5 May 2018 23:28
>> To: tagging@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 pedestria

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Walkingbus_stop

[Selfish Seahorse]

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  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: 
> To: "'Tag discussion, strategy and related tools'"
> 
> 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 
> Sent: Sunday, 6 May 2018 00:59
> To: tagging@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.tagg...@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 
> Sent: Sunday, 6 May 2018 00:09
> To: tagging@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.tagg...@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 
> Sent: Saturday, 5 May 2018 23:28
> To: tagging@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.tagg...@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 co

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Walkingbus_stop

[Lorenzo Stucchi]

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: 
mailto:osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au>>
To: "'Tag discussion, strategy and related tools'"
mailto:tagging@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 mailto:erkinalp9...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Sunday, 6 May 2018 00:59
To: tagging@openstreetmap.org<mailto:tagging@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.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au<mailto:osm.tagg...@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 mailto:erkinalp9...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Sunday, 6 May 2018 00:09
To: tagging@openstreetmap.org<mailto:tagging@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.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au<mailto:osm.tagg...@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 mailto:erkinalp9...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Saturday, 5 May 2018 23:28
To: tagging@openstreetmap.org<mailto:tagging@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.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au<mailto:osm.tagg...@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 
mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>>
*Sent:* Saturday, 5 May 2018 22:42
*To:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org>>
*Subject:* Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC -
Walkingbus_stop




sent f

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Walkingbus_stop

[osm.tagging]

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 
> Sent: Sunday, 6 May 2018 00:59
> To: tagging@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.tagg...@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 
> >> Sent: Sunday, 6 May 2018 00:09
> >> To: tagging@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.tagg...@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 
> >>>> Sent: Saturday, 5 May 2018 23:28
> >>>> To: tagging@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.tagg...@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 
> >>>>> *Sent:* Saturday, 5 May 2018 22:42
> >>>>> *To:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> *Subject:* Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC -
> >> Walkingbus_stop
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>&g

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Walkingbus_stop

[Erkin Alp Güney]

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.tagg...@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 
>> Sent: Sunday, 6 May 2018 00:09
>> To: tagging@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.tagg...@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 
>>>> Sent: Saturday, 5 May 2018 23:28
>>>> To: tagging@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.tagg...@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 
>>>>> *Sent:* Saturday, 5 May 2018 22:42
>>>>> *To:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
>>>>> 
>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC -
>> Walkingbus_stop
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> sent from a phone
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 4. May 2018, at 22:34, Johnparis >>>> <mailto:ok...@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 ;-)
>>

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Walkingbus_stop

[osm.tagging]

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 
> Sent: Sunday, 6 May 2018 00:09
> To: tagging@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.tagg...@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 
> >> Sent: Saturday, 5 May 2018 23:28
> >> To: tagging@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.tagg...@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 
> >>> *Sent:* Saturday, 5 May 2018 22:42
> >>> *To:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
> >>> 
> >>> *Subject:* Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC -
> Walkingbus_stop
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> sent from a phone
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 4. May 2018, at 22:34, Johnparis  >>> <mailto:ok...@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@openstreetmap.org
> >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Tagging mailing list
> >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> 
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Walkingbus_stop

[Erkin Alp Güney]

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.tagg...@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 
>> Sent: Saturday, 5 May 2018 23:28
>> To: tagging@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.tagg...@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 
>>> *Sent:* Saturday, 5 May 2018 22:42
>>> *To:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
>>> 
>>> *Subject:* Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Walkingbus_stop
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> sent from a phone
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4. May 2018, at 22:34, Johnparis >> <mailto:ok...@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@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Walkingbus_stop

[osm.tagging]

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 
> Sent: Saturday, 5 May 2018 23:28
> To: tagging@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.tagg...@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 
> > *Sent:* Saturday, 5 May 2018 22:42
> > *To:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
> > 
> > *Subject:* Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Walkingbus_stop
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > sent from a phone
> >
> >
> > On 4. May 2018, at 22:34, Johnparis  > <mailto:ok...@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@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> 
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Walkingbus_stop

[Erkin Alp Güney]

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.tagg...@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 
> *Sent:* Saturday, 5 May 2018 22:42
> *To:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
> 
> *Subject:* Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Walkingbus_stop
>
>  
>
>  
>
> sent from a phone
>
>
> On 4. May 2018, at 22:34, Johnparis  <mailto:ok...@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@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Walkingbus_stop

[osm.tagging]

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  
Sent: Saturday, 5 May 2018 22:42
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Walkingbus_stop

 

 

sent from a phone


On 4. May 2018, at 22:34, Johnparis mailto:ok...@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@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Walkingbus_stop

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 4. May 2018, at 22:34, Johnparis  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@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Walkingbus_stop

[osm.tagging]

To add to this, based on a discussion in #osm, please be careful what you map.

 

If there are poles with signs for the stops, map them. If there are public 
signs describing the routes, map them. But any stops or routes that are private 
information only between organizers and parents/students shouldn’t be mapped.

 

Cheers,

Thorsten

 

From: Johnparis  
Sent: Saturday, 5 May 2018 06:35
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Walkingbus_stop

 

PLEASE do NOT create a highway=walking_bus tag! This would be useful for the 
Public Transport v1 scheme. Which hopefully will some year go away.

 

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

 

If you don't know the side of the street (or it's irrelevant), you can place 
the node in the street (as part of the way) and tag it with: 

walking_bus=yes

public_transport=stop_position 

 

I see that the route relation was discussed here in October 2016. If you feel 
ambitious, you can go a step further and create route relations as described 
under PTv2 using:

type=route 

route=walking_bus 

 

... and even create route_master relations:

type=route_master

route_master=walking_bus 

 

In any case, please do not create a new highway tag. In hindsight those were 
not the best way to go, but there are a million of them (for buses) so they're 
not going away anytime soon.

 

Thanks,

 

John





 

On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 5:21 PM, mailto:osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au> > wrote:

You’ll probably also need a type of route relation for this?

 

Also, public_transport=platform is only valid with at least one  transport type 
specific tag, e.g. bus=yes or tram=yes. So there should probably be a 
walkingbus=yes or walking_bus=yes tag on that. (Whichever is chosen, it should 
be the same string that’s used for the route relation).

 

From: Lorenzo Stucchi mailto:lorenzo.stuc...@mail.polimi.it> > 
Sent: Friday, 4 May 2018 19:22
To: tagging@openstreetmap.org <mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org> 
Subject: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Walkingbus_stop

 

Hi, 

I saw that there is a specific tag for the walking bus stop, so this is mine 
propose about how to tag them. What do you think about this purpose? 

 

Def: Stop point of walking school bus

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Walkingbus_stop 

 

Thank you,

LorenzoStucchi

 


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org> 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

 

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Walkingbus_stop

[Johnparis]

PLEASE do NOT create a highway=walking_bus tag! This would be useful for
the Public Transport v1 scheme. Which hopefully will some year go away.

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

If you don't know the side of the street (or it's irrelevant), you can
place the node in the street (as part of the way) and tag it with:
walking_bus=yes
public_transport=stop_position

I see that the route relation was discussed here in October 2016. If you
feel ambitious, you can go a step further and create route relations as
described under PTv2 using:
type=route
route=walking_bus

... and even create route_master relations:
type=route_master
route_master=walking_bus

In any case, please do not create a new highway tag. In hindsight those
were not the best way to go, but there are a million of them (for buses) so
they're not going away anytime soon.

Thanks,

John




On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 5:21 PM,  wrote:

> You’ll probably also need a type of route relation for this?
>
>
>
> Also, public_transport=platform is only valid with at least one  transport
> type specific tag, e.g. bus=yes or tram=yes. So there should probably be a
> walkingbus=yes or walking_bus=yes tag on that. (Whichever is chosen, it
> should be the same string that’s used for the route relation).
>
>
>
> *From:* Lorenzo Stucchi 
> *Sent:* Friday, 4 May 2018 19:22
> *To:* tagging@openstreetmap.org
> *Subject:* [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Walkingbus_stop
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I saw that there is a specific tag for the walking bus stop, so this is
> mine propose about how to tag them. What do you think about this purpose?
>
>
>
> Def: Stop point of walking school bus
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Walkingbus_stop
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
> LorenzoStucchi
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Walkingbus_stop

[osm.tagging]

You'll probably also need a type of route relation for this?

 

Also, public_transport=platform is only valid with at least one  transport
type specific tag, e.g. bus=yes or tram=yes. So there should probably be a
walkingbus=yes or walking_bus=yes tag on that. (Whichever is chosen, it
should be the same string that's used for the route relation).

 

From: Lorenzo Stucchi  
Sent: Friday, 4 May 2018 19:22
To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Walkingbus_stop

 

Hi, 

I saw that there is a specific tag for the walking bus stop, so this is mine
propose about how to tag them. What do you think about this purpose? 

 

Def: Stop point of walking school bus

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Walkingbus_stop 

 

Thank you,

LorenzoStucchi

 

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging