Re: [Talk-transit] Railway route relations
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 01:31:10AM +0200, Cartinus wrote: On Monday 10 August 2009 09:10:15 Jochen Topf wrote: The infrastructure route is something different from the moving vehicles forming a route. They are two different concepts, so they deserve their own keys. A bicycle route or walking route is more like an infrastructure route, there are signs on the way. Its a physically existing thing. The moving vehicle route (which we called a line) is more ephemeral. To me signs have nothing to do with infrastructure. For me the infrastructure are the roads themselves. So to me a cycleroute is a moving vehicle route. From this follows that introducing line relations is not consistent at all, because then we have a different type of relation for public transport moving vehicle routes and private transport moving vehicle routes. Of course its not about the signs themselves, they just help identify the infrastructure. I'll try to explain my point differently: There is infrastructure in the form of roads and paths. Some of them have names or numbers, often overlapping, such as the School Rd or M5 or B 57 or Thames Cylce Path. People (optionally in their vehicles) use this infrastructure to move about. Sometimes they use one part of the infrastructure, sometimes another part. For most journeys they will use several of those named/numbered routes. So I might take my bike out for a spin first along some local roads (Foo Rd, Bar Rd, ...), a larger Road (B 567) and then along smaller roads again which happen to be part of the Baz Cycle Route etc. Public transport lines are different. They are not part of this infrastructure, they us it just like I use this infrastructure when out cycling. But there is a difference to my cycling: They always use the same parts of the infrastructure on each journey. Unlike my way to work (which is the same each day, too), these public transport journeys are important to many people. Thats why we want to put them into OSM. I totally agree that this is only one way of thinking about these difference and as always the world is much more complicated. But I happen to think this to be a very obvious and logical classification. Others might see it differently. Jochen -- Jochen Topf joc...@remote.org http://www.remote.org/jochen/ +49-721-388298 ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Railway route relations
On Monday 10 August 2009 09:10:15 Jochen Topf wrote: The infrastructure route is something different from the moving vehicles forming a route. They are two different concepts, so they deserve their own keys. A bicycle route or walking route is more like an infrastructure route, there are signs on the way. Its a physically existing thing. The moving vehicle route (which we called a line) is more ephemeral. To me signs have nothing to do with infrastructure. For me the infrastructure are the roads themselves. So to me a cycleroute is a moving vehicle route. From this follows that introducing line relations is not consistent at all, because then we have a different type of relation for public transport moving vehicle routes and private transport moving vehicle routes. -- m.v.g., Cartinus ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Railway route relations
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 1:12 AM, Cartinus carti...@xs4all.nl wrote: IMHO the solution is simple. Name it after what you are mapping. For vehicles: The route the cyclist follows is route=bicycle. The route bus 5 follows is route=bus. The route tram 13 follows is route=tram. The route the Eurostar follows is route=train. For infrastructure: The route of the M1 is route=road The route that is made up of the rail tracks of the East Coast Mainline is route=rail. I think this is probably the smartest, and yet most obvious idea suggested in this thread. I've started to document this on the wiki. Vehicles: route=train http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dtrain route=bus http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dbus route=tram http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dtram Infrastructure: route=railway http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Drailway (I'm not too fussed whether we use route=rail or route=railway, however it's been suggested that route=rail has been used already where route=train would be better) -- Frankie Roberto Experience Designer, Rattle 0114 2706977 http://www.rattlecentral.com ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Railway route relations
On 4 Aug 2009, at 23:37, Frankie Roberto wrote: Hi all, I'm still keen to try and nail this public transport service vs infrastructure issue. I have create a new wiki-page 'Public transport schema 2' based on Oxomoa's proposal on the main wiki based on the last edit made before the big revert. I have added a bit of information about the relation you refer to in the 'infrastructure' section , but more is needed:- http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Public_transport_schema_2 This is very much a proposal to discuss and develop which I see it as being the top-level transit description which links out to more detailed articles (some of which already exist) to create a coherent whole. Regards, Peter I think this mainly applies to railways, however, as I've mentioned before, I'm trying out a few of the ideas on the UK's much smaller list of tram networks. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Trams details where I've got to so far. The Tramlink in Croydon (London) is a good example of where the the infrastructure (the track network) is clearly different from the tram service patterns (routes 1 to 3). The routes are currently mapped with a relation tagged as type=route, route=tram. I've just created a relation for the network as a whole (see http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/189917) . For the type being, it's tagged as type=network, network=tram as well as public_transport=network from Sebastians proposal. Are there any other views on how this should be tagged? Perhaps the network shouldn't be tagged at all, under the relations aren't for categories principle? I'm also of the opinion that we should stick to using type=route, route=tram/railway for the train/tram service patterns, rather than the infrastructure. However, this appears to be the opposite of what's written in http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Oxomoa/Public_transport_schema Thoughts? Frankie On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 10:25 PM, Frankie Roberto fran...@frankieroberto.com wrote: On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 8:27 PM, Jochen Topf joc...@remote.org wrote: The first question is what does route=railway denote, the infrastructure or the service pattern? This has been solved in Sebastians proposal: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Oxomoa/Public_transport_schema#Differentiation_between_railway_lines_and_railway_routes Thanks for the link, I hadn't seen this. I agree with Peter that we need to bring these various proposals together, form some kind of consensus, and document it fully on the main wiki pages (eg http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Routes) Interestingly, if I understand it correctly, the division between route and line in Sebastian's proposal is exactly opposite to what I'd intuitively have guessed at from the words. eg, we have the West Coast Main Line (the infrastructure or rail corridor) and the route of the Flying Scotsman (the schedule service route). So if it was me, I think I'd name them the opposite way round. However, so long as we document them clearly (with examples), I guess it doesn't matter too much which words we use. As a first step, I think it'd be useful to look at some concrete examples, see how they're currently tagged in OSM, and suggest ways in which the various schemes would be applied. I've started doing this a bit with the UK's tram networks (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Trams ), which so far use route=tram to tag the service patterns of the trams (which seem to sometimes be called lines, and sometimes routes). -- Frankie Roberto Experience Designer, Rattle 0114 2706977 http://www.rattlecentral.com ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Railway route relations
Couldn't you just use the network tag on the 3 tram route relations and merge the results to get this relations? It requires a bit more preprocessing to get the information that you are looking for, whilst making it easier for mappers and reducing the data size. Shaun On 4 Aug 2009, at 23:37, Frankie Roberto wrote: Hi all, I'm still keen to try and nail this public transport service vs infrastructure issue. I think this mainly applies to railways, however, as I've mentioned before, I'm trying out a few of the ideas on the UK's much smaller list of tram networks. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Trams details where I've got to so far. The Tramlink in Croydon (London) is a good example of where the the infrastructure (the track network) is clearly different from the tram service patterns (routes 1 to 3). The routes are currently mapped with a relation tagged as type=route, route=tram. I've just created a relation for the network as a whole (see http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/189917) . For the type being, it's tagged as type=network, network=tram as well as public_transport=network from Sebastians proposal. Are there any other views on how this should be tagged? Perhaps the network shouldn't be tagged at all, under the relations aren't for categories principle? I'm also of the opinion that we should stick to using type=route, route=tram/railway for the train/tram service patterns, rather than the infrastructure. However, this appears to be the opposite of what's written in http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Oxomoa/Public_transport_schema Thoughts? Frankie On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 10:25 PM, Frankie Roberto fran...@frankieroberto.com wrote: On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 8:27 PM, Jochen Topf joc...@remote.org wrote: The first question is what does route=railway denote, the infrastructure or the service pattern? This has been solved in Sebastians proposal: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Oxomoa/Public_transport_schema#Differentiation_between_railway_lines_and_railway_routes Thanks for the link, I hadn't seen this. I agree with Peter that we need to bring these various proposals together, form some kind of consensus, and document it fully on the main wiki pages (eg http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Routes) Interestingly, if I understand it correctly, the division between route and line in Sebastian's proposal is exactly opposite to what I'd intuitively have guessed at from the words. eg, we have the West Coast Main Line (the infrastructure or rail corridor) and the route of the Flying Scotsman (the schedule service route). So if it was me, I think I'd name them the opposite way round. However, so long as we document them clearly (with examples), I guess it doesn't matter too much which words we use. As a first step, I think it'd be useful to look at some concrete examples, see how they're currently tagged in OSM, and suggest ways in which the various schemes would be applied. I've started doing this a bit with the UK's tram networks (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Trams ), which so far use route=tram to tag the service patterns of the trams (which seem to sometimes be called lines, and sometimes routes). -- Frankie Roberto Experience Designer, Rattle 0114 2706977 http://www.rattlecentral.com ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Railway route relations
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 1:12 AM, Cartinus carti...@xs4all.nl wrote: IMHO the solution is simple. Name it after what you are mapping. For vehicles: The route the cyclist follows is route=bicycle. The route bus 5 follows is route=bus. The route tram 13 follows is route=tram. The route the Eurostar follows is route=train. For infrastructure: The route of the M1 is route=road The route that is made up of the rail tracks of the East Coast Mainline is route=rail. Deprecating route= and replacing it with line= for most things where we currently use route= is a lot of work for no real gain. -- m.v.g., Cartinus ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit +1 Though I'd go for route=railway for infrastructure, since route=rail is currently being used by a lot of relations for which route=train would be better. Richard ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Railway route relations
Some information lies better on the infrastructure, so for some purposes you want both. I've concluded that infrastructure relations are probably the best way to mark whether route sections are predominantly 1-track, 2-track, 4-track etc. I don't think we've identified much of a need for infrastructure relations on self-contained railways, though I don't think they hurt. Richard On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 8:05 AM, Shaun McDonald sh...@shaunmcdonald.me.ukwrote: Couldn't you just use the network tag on the 3 tram route relations and merge the results to get this relations? It requires a bit more preprocessing to get the information that you are looking for, whilst making it easier for mappers and reducing the data size. Shaun ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Railway route relations
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 1:13 PM, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com wrote: Deprecating route= and replacing it with line= for most things where we currently use route= is a lot of work for no real gain. Though I'd go for route=railway for infrastructure, since route=rail is currently being used by a lot of relations for which route=train would be better. +1 route=railway and route=train works for me. For trams, would this be route=tramway and route=tram? Frankie -- Frankie Roberto Experience Designer, Rattle 0114 2706977 http://www.rattlecentral.com ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Railway route relations
On 5 Aug 2009, at 13:13, Richard Mann wrote: On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 1:12 AM, Cartinus carti...@xs4all.nl wrote: IMHO the solution is simple. Name it after what you are mapping. For vehicles: The route the cyclist follows is route=bicycle. The route bus 5 follows is route=bus. The route tram 13 follows is route=tram. The route the Eurostar follows is route=train. For infrastructure: The route of the M1 is route=road The route that is made up of the rail tracks of the East Coast Mainline is route=rail. Deprecating route= and replacing it with line= for most things where we currently use route= is a lot of work for no real gain. -- m.v.g., Cartinus ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit +1 Though I'd go for route=railway for infrastructure, since route=rail is currently being used by a lot of relations for which route=train would be better. Do check out this new wiki page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Public_transport_schema_2 I have done some work on the top level modelling for transit information based on Oxoma's work. I am proposing that we use Lines, Line Variants and Routes for the actual services in a similar way to the original proposal. Lines are pretty much unchanged. Line Variants used to hold a stop list and also the route through the infrastructure. I have split this into Line Variants for the list of stops, and Routes for the path through the network (this approach saves work as it allows Routes to be reused on more than one Line Variant). It is also the modelling used by Transmodel which will be helpful when we start getting more EU schedule data. Routes are pretty much the same as cycle routes, ie a single path through the transport network. I have added a basic infrastructure route proposal, but have no strong feelings about what tags we use. With regard to updating what is already in OSM then I suggest we use write some tools to do the job. Frederik has already offered to some support for this (and he recently did some automatic cleanup on tiger data in the USA) using a similar rule-bases approach. Regards, Peter Richard ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Railway route relations
Yes Frederik could tidy things up, but it's best not to change things arbitrarily (ie substituting line for route), because it just makes it harder to remember what is correct. The lack of presets for relations in Potlatch makes it doubly useful to minimise the complexity. Richard ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Railway route relations
On 5 Aug 2009, at 14:41, Richard Mann wrote: Yes Frederik could tidy things up, but it's best not to change things arbitrarily (ie substituting line for route), because it just makes it harder to remember what is correct. The lack of presets for relations in Potlatch makes it doubly useful to minimise the complexity. I totally agree, however we are just setting out on a long journey to capture all the transit data for the world, so lets get the modelling clear now and not be held back by some tag-updating! As we are aware the various transit strands and proposals were initially created bottom-up in a rather random way (which is the nature of these projects). Oxomoa then did a good review of the tagging and identified a number of gaps and inconsistencies with the German community which started to bring it all together. We have also had some useful input from the professional transit community. I suggest that we put significant effort into the wiki and modelling at this point to get all the transit related pages to fit together in a consistent way to our liking and that this will pay big dividends in the future. Regards, Peter Richard ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Railway route relations
Hi all, I'm still keen to try and nail this public transport service vs infrastructure issue. I think this mainly applies to railways, however, as I've mentioned before, I'm trying out a few of the ideas on the UK's much smaller list of tram networks. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Trams details where I've got to so far. The Tramlink in Croydon (London) is a good example of where the the infrastructure (the track network) is clearly different from the tram service patterns (routes 1 to 3). The routes are currently mapped with a relation tagged as type=route, route=tram. I've just created a relation for the network as a whole (see http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/189917). For the type being, it's tagged as type=network, network=tram as well as public_transport=network from Sebastians proposal. Are there any other views on how this should be tagged? Perhaps the network shouldn't be tagged at all, under the relations aren't for categories principle? I'm also of the opinion that we should stick to using type=route, route=tram/railway for the train/tram service patterns, rather than the infrastructure. However, this appears to be the opposite of what's written in http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Oxomoa/Public_transport_schema Thoughts? Frankie On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 10:25 PM, Frankie Roberto fran...@frankieroberto.com wrote: On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 8:27 PM, Jochen Topf joc...@remote.org wrote: The first question is what does route=railway denote, the infrastructure or the service pattern? This has been solved in Sebastians proposal: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Oxomoa/Public_transport_schema#Differentiation_between_railway_lines_and_railway_routes Thanks for the link, I hadn't seen this. I agree with Peter that we need to bring these various proposals together, form some kind of consensus, and document it fully on the main wiki pages (eg http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Routes) Interestingly, if I understand it correctly, the division between route and line in Sebastian's proposal is exactly opposite to what I'd intuitively have guessed at from the words. eg, we have the West Coast Main Line (the infrastructure or rail corridor) and the route of the Flying Scotsman (the schedule service route). So if it was me, I think I'd name them the opposite way round. However, so long as we document them clearly (with examples), I guess it doesn't matter too much which words we use. As a first step, I think it'd be useful to look at some concrete examples, see how they're currently tagged in OSM, and suggest ways in which the various schemes would be applied. I've started doing this a bit with the UK's tram networks ( http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Trams), which so far use route=tram to tag the service patterns of the trams (which seem to sometimes be called lines, and sometimes routes). -- Frankie Roberto Experience Designer, Rattle 0114 2706977 http://www.rattlecentral.com ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Railway route relations
On Wednesday 05 August 2009 00:37:50 Frankie Roberto wrote: Hi all, I'm still keen to try and nail this public transport service vs infrastructure issue. IMHO the solution is simple. Name it after what you are mapping. For vehicles: The route the cyclist follows is route=bicycle. The route bus 5 follows is route=bus. The route tram 13 follows is route=tram. The route the Eurostar follows is route=train. For infrastructure: The route of the M1 is route=road The route that is made up of the rail tracks of the East Coast Mainline is route=rail. Deprecating route= and replacing it with line= for most things where we currently use route= is a lot of work for no real gain. -- m.v.g., Cartinus ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Railway route relations
Hi all, On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.comwrote: I think the problem is that we are using the term Route for at least two different things. The more I think about it, the more I think this needs resolving (and well documenting)! The first question is what does route=railway denote, the infrastructure or the service pattern? To put it in concrete terms, there are two regular Eurostar services, London-Paris and London-Brussels. Should there be a railway=route relation for each of these services? What about the ocassional Disneyland and snow train services to the Alps? These services also travel along the lines known as High Speed 1 (from Folkestone to London) and the Channel Tunnel - should these also be tagged as separate relations? Frankie -- Frankie Roberto Experience Designer, Rattle 0114 2706977 http://www.rattlecentral.com ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Railway route relations
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 04:24:34PM +0100, Frankie Roberto wrote: On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.comwrote: I think the problem is that we are using the term Route for at least two different things. The more I think about it, the more I think this needs resolving (and well documenting)! The first question is what does route=railway denote, the infrastructure or the service pattern? This has been solved in Sebastians proposal: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Oxomoa/Public_transport_schema#Differentiation_between_railway_lines_and_railway_routes Jochen -- Jochen Topf joc...@remote.org http://www.remote.org/jochen/ +49-721-388298 ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Railway route relations
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.comwrote: I am happy to change the settings for this list, but then it will be different from most other lists. Lets have a poll and follow the majority. I will stay neutral! For some reason I had it in my head that the main osm-talk list had replies set to go to the group. Anyway, I think it can be useful to have that as the default (especially for small lists). It depends what you're used to though! Btw, could a couple of people also offer to be admins for the list and get to see all the exciting spam offers (of the normal limited variety!) and ban the posters of these messages, oh, and also very occasionally spot a genuine post. To give you an idea of the size of the problem we get about 1 spam message a day. I'd be happy to help out. How does managing the spam work with Gmail (which tends to filter out spam anyway)? Do you have to turn spam filtering off for e-mails sent to the group (in order to be able to spot and ban people)? Frankie P.S How many people here are going to SOTM? Maybe we could have a mini transit meetup? -- Frankie Roberto Experience Designer, Rattle 0114 2706977 http://www.rattlecentral.com ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Railway route relations
On 6 Jul 2009, at 21:24, Melchior Moos wrote: Hi, 2009/7/6 Brian Prangle bpran...@googlemail.com I've experimented with the section of the West Coast Mainline between B'ham New St and B'ham International: I've added a train (i.e service) relation with ref=WCML and also a railway (i.e physical) relation with ref =17.01 ( the SRS for the section of track) to see how it rendered in opnvkarte. I'd appreciate people's opinions now the render engine has caught up. Personally I don't like it and I think the physical stuff is better tagged on the ways; opnvkarte is a public transport map and should show services My interest in infrastructure relations is not very high, the only reason I'm rendering them is, that there were (or maybe are) some service routes that are tagged with route=railway. Rendering them enables people to see the fault. The main focus of öpnvkarte lies on the service relations. I think the problem is that we are using the term Route for at least two different things. Are there not reasons why one might what to create a relation for the West Coast Main Line 'infrastructure/ physical/track' or the East Suffolk Line 'infrastructure/physical/ track' or a particular SRS section 'infrastructure/physical/track' as distinct from path used by a particular rail operator or by a particular public transport service? Should we not provide a way of doing both even if both are not always populated? Why do we not proposed a different way of coding relations for the railways, SRS sections etc and ensure that these are not rendered on opnvkarte rather than dump the whole idea? Personally I see this being a very useful piece of information about the Peterborough to Ely line and like the way the relation overlays on the slippery map for more detail: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/142758 (relation for Peter to Ely line) I have done something similar for the Cambridgeshire Guided Busway which I have found very useful http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/164711 Regards, Peter regards, Melchior ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
