Re: [Tagging] Public Transport Timetables

[marc marc]

Le 08. 11. 18 à 23:03, Jo a écrit :
> an object that 'represents' an operator

the operator's headquarters seems appropriate.
but the question remains open for networks.

that being said, I have the impression that we could start already with 
what doesn't need it (the interval proposal, add the GTFS url on the 
master route before making thousands of timetable occurrences of which 
as a data user I am mixed to use if it have more than X months)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Public Transport Timetables

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Fri, 9 Nov 2018 at 08:02, Paul Allen  wrote:

> If I understand it correctly (quite possibly not) your examples are not
> GTFS feeds but timetables
> derived from them.
>

Ugh, now you're asking questions that are way, way beyond me! Any thoughts,
anyone (& does it make any difference?)

Simple way may just be multiple timetable tags -
>> "timetable:red_busline=URL*" "timetable:blue_busline=URL*"
>>
>
> That was a suggestion I made earlier in the thread, but nobody responded
> either way.
>

Sorry, didn't notice it then. (or wasn't thinking about it?)

Only problem with that is do we insist on the operator name even when
> there's only one operator?  Probably best
> if we do.
>

Do we need to? I guess it may depend on the individual bus stop - if
there's only one timetable, then just timetable=, if there's multiples then
timetable:translink=* + timetable:skybus=* +timetable:greyhound=*, each as
a separate tag going to a different URL. *Much* simpler than relations or
whatever, & I like simple! :-)

Of course, then there's the problem of ensuring mappers use a consistent
> name for an operator
>

Probably get's down to local knowledge? I know that everything here is
covered by the Translink network, even though there are multiple companies
running buses on that network, with SkyBus running between the airport &
the major hotels. You know that you have Green Buses & Red Buses (or
perhaps Bysiau Coch? :-)) in your area. Leave the naming to the mapper, as
all we're really interested in is the correct URL for that stop.

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Public Transport Timetables

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 10:00 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
> On Fri, 9 Nov 2018 at 07:53, Paul Allen  wrote:
>
>>
>> Kinda reminds me of a Google bus route I looked at several years ago
>> which apparently drew straight
>> lines (through houses and across fields) between timetabled stops rather
>> than following a road between
>> them.
>>
>
> I was wondering whether you had flying buses, or lot's of tunnels under
> the river? :-)
>

Cargo helicopters.

The route is weird, but not that weird.  Looks like they've conflated two
routes by accident and then
misordered the stops so we end up with the bizarre lines that don't follow
roads.  And even ignoring
that, they've got the Maesglas loop wrong.  It's very messed up.  The dead
ends, though, are correct
(that's where the cargo helicopters come into play).

Totally OT I know, but how would you go about suggesting to these companies
> that they use OSM maps rather than Google?
>

With traveline I'd think it's a matter of getting the English branch to
suggest it to the Welsh branch.
But unless the English branch make their suggestion in Welsh it may not get
anywhere.  The
actual reason for ignoring the suggestion will be NIH syndrome, but it's
easier to play silly
beggars when you can blame it on language issues.

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

[Richard]

On Tue, Nov 06, 2018 at 11:26:49PM -0600, Gerd Petermann wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> after reading the last comments in this thread I tried again to convince
> Dave that the rather special rules for multipolygon relations cannot be used
> for all types of relations, esp. not those with route=pipeline and that he
> should not remove tags like man_made=pipeline from ways of such a relation,
> see this long discussion:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/64027881
> 
> I give up now because for me a type=multipolygon relation is something
> completely different and Dave insists that it is are not. Seems we are both
> frustated now :-(

my experience with waterways tells me that "essential tags" (like natural=water)
allways belong to the members and not any encompassing relation such as 
relation:waterway.
man_made=pipeline looks like on of those tags I would always put on the members,
not the relation.

Richard

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

Re: [Tagging] Reversible Road tagging

[Richard]

On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 04:05:49PM -0500, Jack Burke wrote:

> Following the KISS principle, barrier node tagging might be the way to go,
> at least initially.
> 
> Barrier tagging Pros:
> * Easy to implement in routing (e.g., OsmAnd's routing.xml can process a
> node as barrier=1 or barrier=-1 based on the opening_hours times).


note that OsmAnd doesn't do any time dependent routing, or at it least it
didn't do it for a very long time.

> Barrier tagging Cons:
> * Having a hard time thinking of any.

might work to some extent but I see it as important deficit that the 
directionality 
of the road isn't modelled.. sooner or later it will cause disaster. Imagine 
routers 
to issue commands like "turn around and follow the road in opposite direction" 
when the
diver missed an exit for example.
Also, just one single entry point that someone has forgotten to tag with a 
barrier
or has the wrong time information and the router will send kamikaze drivers in 
the wrong 
direction into the expressway.

My thought would be to have a variable time dependent number of lanes in each
direction.

Or "oneway" with conditional restrictions 
 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Conditional_restrictions

Richard

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

Re: [Tagging] Public Transport Timetables

[Jo]

One thing that I found while trying this 'little' exercise is that it would
be good to have an object that 'represents' an operator or a network. I was
using this to keep track of holidays with Sunday schedule and when school
vacations are, because that influences the timetables, but it  could
definitely also serve to point to where one can find a GTFS for the
operator/network/agency and how GTFS fields translate to OSM tags:

In my region I have started to use ref:De_Lijn=102345, in the GTFS feed I
found this corresponds to the stop_code field.

What I plan to do is to add a url tag to all the stops, that lead to a web
page with realtime for each separate stop. On the route_master relations, I
plan to point to the operator's web site's page describing that particular
line.

Polyglot

Op do 8 nov. 2018 om 22:53 schreef Paul Allen :

>
> On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 9:27 PM Andy Townsend  wrote:
>
>>
>> FWIW I've just used https://www.traveline.info/ to find journey between
>> Porthmadog and Criccieth and Bearsden and Milton of Campsie (yes!  There
>> are ones at this time of night!) so the main site does  indeed work in
>> Wales and Scotland.
>>
>
> Yes, it works.  But it doesn't have an option to use Cymraeg.  Which would
> be a show-stopper
> for some people in Wales, who would rather use a site that is completely
> broken if it is in
> Welsh rather than a site that works but is only available in English.
>
> Also, the .cymru site has something the .info site does not, route maps.
> I just pulled up a local
> route and looked at its map.  Admittedly it is a very weird and
> complicated route (reminiscent of
> a spider web on drugs), but this route map gets it wrong in many, many
> ways:
>
> https://www.traveline.cymru/timetables/?routeNum=408_id=0_key=408MFRBA1
>
> Kinda reminds me of a Google bus route I looked at several years ago which
> apparently drew straight
> lines (through houses and across fields) between timetabled stops rather
> than following a road between
> them.  Told me to get to a location on the actual bus route by getting off
> a mile beyond and walking
> back because it had joined the stops with straight lines through fields.
> It was only by playing around
> that I got it to show the route it was using, which at one point ploughed
> through the middle of a small
> housing estate and took a straight line across farmland to the next
> timetabled stop.
>
>
>> Other than Traveline, plenty of other OSMers* have worked in the
>> transport / route planning area - both "startups" and more traditional
>> transport authorities.  I know of others have looked at consuming GTFS for
>> bus routes in England, and found that it can be a bit complicated as the
>> same numbered route can exist multiple times in the GTFS feed with only
>> minor differences for the variations - it's not just a simple case of "grab
>> all that data from there and use it" unless you're prepared to do quite a
>> bit of processing.  You really need to be an app to do anything useful with
>> the data (such as https://oeffi.schildbach.de/index.html - which works
>> everywhere in GB that I've tried it and presumably uses Traveline's feeds,
>> or something similar) - anything else would just be "reinventing GTFS".
>>
>
> So what's the copyright situation with Traveline's GTFS feeds?  Are we
> free to use any of them to add
> routes to OSM?  Obviously, they'd have to be sanity-checked...
>
> --
> 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] Public Transport Timetables

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 9:43 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
> On Thu, 8 Nov 2018 at 22:28, Paul Allen  wrote:
>
>>
>> All of them. :)
>>
>> Seriously, which one I'd want would depend upon circumstances.
>>
>
> Agree with you, but I don't think we need to provide all those options,
> just get the viewer to the right website, because once they're there, there
> are links provided by the operator to go to other pages etc.
>

It wasn't clear to me (from casual inspection) that operators would not
necessarily do that.  If I
understand it correctly (quite possibly not) your examples are not GTFS
feeds but timetables
derived from them.


> I think that the "next bus" page would be better one to land on, as it's
> simpler / easier to read, while the "full timetable" page may be a bit
> unwieldy on a mobile phone?
>

Good point.  Especially as around here full timetables are PDF because
that's all the local
operators and county council can figure out to produce timetables.

Maybe have the tag more general so it can link to non-gtfs
>> timetables on operator websites too.  Maybe we don't even have to specify
>> gtfs
>>
>
> "Timetable" with the URL? Had a quick search & can't see that timetable is
> yet in use as a tag. Perhaps "schedule" but I personally prefer timetable
> for bus & so on times.
>

Timetable works for me.  We could just use url=* but it's possible we'll
find another purpose for
that in some situation and timetable=* would make it clear to data
consumers.

And please don't forget the possibility of a single route having two
>> operator whose GTFS feeds
>> list only their own vehicles on that route. The tag has to deal with
>> that.  And semi-colon separators
>> aren't viable
>>
>
> Simple way may just be multiple timetable tags -
> "timetable:red_busline=URL*" "timetable:blue_busline=URL*"
>

That was a suggestion I made earlier in the thread, but nobody responded
either way.  Only problem
with that is do we insist on the operator name even when there's only one
operator?  Probably best
if we do.  Of course, then there's the problem of ensuring mappers use a
consistent name for an
operator, and how we handle collisions.  It looks like traveline has
assigned unique operator
codes for UK operators and it would seem very sensible to re-use those.

Here's another stop nearby, which is a fairly major hub
> https://jp.translink.com.au/plan-your-journey/stops/300018, which has 12
> separate routes stopping there.
>

If we're going to apply timetable:operator=* to a relation for a route,
that's not a problem.  If we're going to
apply it to stops then it will have to be timetable:route_ref:operator=*.

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

Re: [Tagging] Public Transport Timetables

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Fri, 9 Nov 2018 at 07:53, Paul Allen  wrote:

>
> Kinda reminds me of a Google bus route I looked at several years ago which
> apparently drew straight
> lines (through houses and across fields) between timetabled stops rather
> than following a road between
> them.
>

I was wondering whether you had flying buses, or lot's of tunnels under the
river? :-)

Totally OT I know, but how would you go about suggesting to these companies
that they use OSM maps rather than Google?

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Public Transport Timetables

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 9:27 PM Andy Townsend  wrote:

>
> FWIW I've just used https://www.traveline.info/ to find journey between
> Porthmadog and Criccieth and Bearsden and Milton of Campsie (yes!  There
> are ones at this time of night!) so the main site does  indeed work in
> Wales and Scotland.
>

Yes, it works.  But it doesn't have an option to use Cymraeg.  Which would
be a show-stopper
for some people in Wales, who would rather use a site that is completely
broken if it is in
Welsh rather than a site that works but is only available in English.

Also, the .cymru site has something the .info site does not, route maps.
I just pulled up a local
route and looked at its map.  Admittedly it is a very weird and complicated
route (reminiscent of
a spider web on drugs), but this route map gets it wrong in many, many ways:
https://www.traveline.cymru/timetables/?routeNum=408_id=0_key=408MFRBA1

Kinda reminds me of a Google bus route I looked at several years ago which
apparently drew straight
lines (through houses and across fields) between timetabled stops rather
than following a road between
them.  Told me to get to a location on the actual bus route by getting off
a mile beyond and walking
back because it had joined the stops with straight lines through fields.
It was only by playing around
that I got it to show the route it was using, which at one point ploughed
through the middle of a small
housing estate and took a straight line across farmland to the next
timetabled stop.


> Other than Traveline, plenty of other OSMers* have worked in the transport
> / route planning area - both "startups" and more traditional transport
> authorities.  I know of others have looked at consuming GTFS for bus routes
> in England, and found that it can be a bit complicated as the same numbered
> route can exist multiple times in the GTFS feed with only minor differences
> for the variations - it's not just a simple case of "grab all that data
> from there and use it" unless you're prepared to do quite a bit of
> processing.  You really need to be an app to do anything useful with the
> data (such as https://oeffi.schildbach.de/index.html - which works
> everywhere in GB that I've tried it and presumably uses Traveline's feeds,
> or something similar) - anything else would just be "reinventing GTFS".
>

So what's the copyright situation with Traveline's GTFS feeds?  Are we free
to use any of them to add
routes to OSM?  Obviously, they'd have to be sanity-checked...

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

Re: [Tagging] Public Transport Timetables

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Thu, 8 Nov 2018 at 22:28, Paul Allen  wrote:

>
> All of them. :)
>
> Seriously, which one I'd want would depend upon circumstances.
>

Agree with you, but I don't think we need to provide all those options,
just get the viewer to the right website, because once they're there, there
are links provided by the operator to go to other pages etc. I think that
the "next bus" page would be better one to land on, as it's simpler /
easier to read, while the "full timetable" page may be a bit unwieldy on a
mobile phone?


> Maybe have the tag more general so it can link to non-gtfs
> timetables on operator websites too.  Maybe we don't even have to specify
> gtfs
>

"Timetable" with the URL? Had a quick search & can't see that timetable is
yet in use as a tag. Perhaps "schedule" but I personally prefer timetable
for bus & so on times.

And please don't forget the possibility of a single route having two
> operator whose GTFS feeds
> list only their own vehicles on that route. The tag has to deal with
> that.  And semi-colon separators
> aren't viable
>

Simple way may just be multiple timetable tags -
"timetable:red_busline=URL*" "timetable:blue_busline=URL*"

Here's another stop nearby, which is a fairly major hub
https://jp.translink.com.au/plan-your-journey/stops/300018, which has 12
separate routes stopping there. These are all controlled under one network
"Translink", but the actual buses using these routes belong to 3 different
bus companies. There're also long-distance / interstate coaches that stop
here, but they aren't covered by Translink so their times aren't shown.

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Public Transport Timetables

[Andy Townsend]

On 08/11/2018 20:24, Paul Allen wrote:
On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 7:44 PM Philip Barnes > wrote:


In the UK traveline already provide this service and use OSM. In
fact they are part of the OSM community and update the map.
See

http://www.travelinemidlands.co.uk/wmtis/XSLT_TRIP_REQUEST2?language=en=15


Erm, nope.  See https://www.traveline.cymru/


FWIW I've just used https://www.traveline.info/ to find journey between 
Porthmadog and Criccieth and Bearsden and Milton of Campsie (yes!  There 
are ones at this time of night!) so the main site does indeed work in 
Wales and Scotland.




s/UK/England/ possibly even s/UK/West Midlands/


The "about" page says "for all travel in Great Britain by bus, rail, 
coach and ferry".  As Phil mentioned, at least one of the Traveline 
people is a regular on the GB mailing list and may also see this 
message.  So not UK (but to be fair I don't think that anyone ws ever 
claiming that NI travel was covered) but certainly GB - which is of 
course "in the UK".


Other than Traveline, plenty of other OSMers* have worked in the 
transport / route planning area - both "startups" and more traditional 
transport authorities.  I know of others have looked at consuming GTFS 
for bus routes in England, and found that it can be a bit complicated as 
the same numbered route can exist multiple times in the GTFS feed with 
only minor differences for the variations - it's not just a simple case 
of "grab all that data from there and use it" unless you're prepared to 
do quite a bit of processing.  You really need to be an app to do 
anything useful with the data (such as 
https://oeffi.schildbach.de/index.html - which works everywhere in GB 
that I've tried it and presumably uses Traveline's feeds, or something 
similar) - anything else would just be "reinventing GTFS".


Best Regards,

Andy

* not naming anyone; they can out themselves if they so wish :)

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

[Tagging] Reversible Road tagging

[Jack Burke]

With the advent of new reversible freeways north and south of Atlanta, I
think it's time we try to come up with a way to model the reversal schedule
so that routers can begin to utilize them properly.  Note that I am
referring to roads where the entire roadway reverses, not a reversible
*lane* scenario (such as this one:
https://osm.org/go/ZSARXLJg?layers=NG=129555346), although we might be
able to find a solution that fits both.

Examples of reversible roads:

I 75 & I 575 Express Lanes north of Atlanta (aka the "Northwest Corridor"):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Corridor_Project
http://www.dot.ga.gov/DS/GEL/NWC

I 75 South Metro Express Lanes south of Atlanta:
http://www.peachpass.com/where-can-i-use-peach-pass/i-75-south-metro-express-lanes/

the Lee Roy Selmon Crosstown Expressway elevated express lanes (separate
from the dedicated one-way lanes of the expressway) in Tampa:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Roy_Selmon_Expressway

I seem to recall seeing mention of one more in someone's OSM diary, but I
can't find it at the moment.  I'm sure there are more somewhere else in the
world, too.

For now, I've been adding an opening_hours tag on the barrier nodes on the
entrance lanes (and on the entrance lanes themselves) for the Atlanta
express roads, mainly so that the information gets captured and is
available in OSM.  I haven't touched this on the Selmon Expressway because
it has a more complex reversal schedule (and the road authority seems to
deviate from it quite frequently).  I have specifically avoided putting
opening_hours on barrier nodes on the exit lanes, though, because you can
exit even after the barriers on the entrance lanes go down.

Following the KISS principle, barrier node tagging might be the way to go,
at least initially.

Barrier tagging Pros:
* Easy to implement in routing (e.g., OsmAnd's routing.xml can process a
node as barrier=1 or barrier=-1 based on the opening_hours times).


Barrier tagging Cons:
* Having a hard time thinking of any.


Another way to approach this might be to utilize route relations (I know
this will get several people very excited).  However, this raises the
complexity level; as far as I can suss it out, we'd need a route relation
for each direction, possibly with opening_hours tags in each relation,
probably including the appropriate entrance ways as part of the relations,
and we would have to utilize oneway=-1 in the relations that depict travel
in the opposite direction of the vectors, and oneway=yes for when travel in
the direction of the vector is allowed.  For example, the I 75 Express
Lanes north of Atlanta would need (at least) 2 route relations.  Because of
the split-configuration reversal schedule used, the Selmon Expressway
express lanes would need *6*.  Maybe more, depending on how we end up
modeling it.

Note that I am specifically avoiding oneway=reversible in the route
relation scenario, simply because it doesn't model the situation properly
within the appropriate time windows.  Also, using route relations will make
it hard to capture the fact that you can still drive on the road after the
entrance gates have closed (if anyone has ideas on how to do this, please
speak up, because I can't figure one out).  However, route relations might
be able to capture reversible lane situations where tagging barriers will
not, since they typically don't exist on a simple reversible lane.


Route Relation Pros:
* Captures a lot of information.
* Might capture reversible lane scenarios.
* Can provide a more robust representation of the routes.
* Likely to be enthusiastically supported by certain people.

Route Relation Cons:
* AFAIK, route relations are not supported by any routing engine at all,
except that OsmAnd will display the ref tags from them, and also AFAIK no
one is working on doing so.
* Likely to be years before they *are* supported by routers.
* Complex; possibly beyond the capability of a phone-based router.
* Lots of people dislike oneway=-1.  Very much dislike.
* Routing issues will arise if someone enters one of the express lanes just
before it closes, because then the vehicle will be traveling on a road that
the router thinks is closed, and try to recalculate which could end up with
an impossible route (exit at . when you're in a barrier separated lane
and can't get to the exit).


And, it may be that we decide to start with tagging barrier nodes, with a
goal of implementing it via relations over time if we can come up with a
suitable method to do so.

Thoughts, comments, objections, statements of support?

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

Re: [Tagging] Public Transport Timetables

[Philip Barnes]

On Thu, 2018-11-08 at 20:24 +, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 7:44 PM Philip Barnes 
> wrote:
> > In the UK traveline already provide this service and use OSM. In
> > fact they are part of the OSM community and update the map.
> > See 
> > http://www.travelinemidlands.co.uk/wmtis/XSLT_TRIP_REQUEST2?language=en=15
> 
> Erm, nope.  See https://www.traveline.cymru/
> 
> s/UK/England/ possibly even s/UK/West Midlands/
> 
> It appears that the different regional branches of Traveline do
> things differently.   The interface
> for Traveline Cymru is not very pleasant or easy to use, and ends up
> with Google Maps. :(
> 
It does seem that they do things differently, but certainly West
Midlands, East Midlands and South East use the same interface. Although
as they are all national just ignore traveline.cymru and use one of the
others :)

Phil (trigpoint)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Public Transport Timetables

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 7:44 PM Philip Barnes  wrote:

> In the UK traveline already provide this service and use OSM. In fact they
> are part of the OSM community and update the map.
> See
> http://www.travelinemidlands.co.uk/wmtis/XSLT_TRIP_REQUEST2?language=en=15
>

Erm, nope.  See https://www.traveline.cymru/

s/UK/England/ possibly even s/UK/West Midlands/

It appears that the different regional branches of Traveline do things
differently.   The interface
for Traveline Cymru is not very pleasant or easy to use, and ends up with
Google Maps. :(

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

Re: [Tagging] Public Transport Timetables

[Philip Barnes]

In the UK traveline already provide this service and use OSM. In fact
they are part of the OSM community and update the map.
See 
http://www.travelinemidlands.co.uk/wmtis/XSLT_TRIP_REQUEST2?language=en=15

Phil (trigpoint)

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

[Kevin Kenny]

On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 5:38 AM Dave Swarthout 
wrote:

> Also agreed.
> I'm not saying anything about the route tag. We're talking about tags
> other than route or type, which actually set up the relation. The
> additional tags that describe the route or multipolygon either go on the
> relation or the ways depending on their scope, but not both.
>

Rather than 'depending on their scope', depending on the object to which
they belong.

Your choice of 'operator' as an example is a good one.  Here's one where,
if I had chosen to tag operators, I'd have three different operators, one
for an underlying way and one for each of two relations.

First, there's the way: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/20165067 .
That's where 'highway=secondary surface=asphalt etc.' goes: on the physical
way. The routers and renderers depend on this. Also, because of various
issues with data modeling, 'ref=*' sort of has to be there, but that's a
whole other discussion.  If I were to put an operator=* on the way, I'd put
Schoharie County Highway Department. That's who plows the snow, paints the
lines and fixes the potholes.

Next, there's the road route relation:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/411906 . That's a road route.  It
gets "network", "ref", "symbol" and there's a Wikipedia entry for it.  If I
were to put an operator on it (I haven't) it would be "New York State
Department of Transportation." That's who established that numbered route,
and that's who allocates money for the county to maintain it, and that's
who establishes the standards for a third-class state reference route.

Finally, there's a piece of trail there.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6198493 (I know for certain that
it's mismapped, the on-road section is shorter than what's on the map, but
I haven't been able to make time to get up there and fix it, and that's not
the point! By the way, the guidebook is also wrong.) The trail is simply on
the paved shoulder of the road at that point. If I'd tagged the operator of
that route, it would be the New York/New Jersey Trail Conference. That's
whom to get in touch with if there's a problem with visibility of waymarks,
or a higher-level problem with the routing. (Which there definitely is,
that's a dangerous place to have the trail, and the operator is trying to
fix it, but negotiations with the landowners proceed at a snail's pace.)

For convenience, that relation is in turn part of a larger route relation
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/919642 - this may be a mild abuse,
having a route as a member of a route, but the renderers such as Waymarked
Trails consume it happily.  This breakdown is done because the route is
highly fragmented, and having hundreds or thousands of ways in a single
route relation is pretty unmanageable. All of the member relations
duplicate the full tagging of the parent, so that if a data consumer cannot
handle hierarchical nesting of routes, everything will still work, and the
route will simply be 'Long Path (Schoharie County)' instead of 'Long Path'.

So -- a physical attribute (highway=*, surface=*, building=*, bridge=*,
whatever...) always goes on a physical object (a node, way, or
multipolygon). Relations other than multipolygons are not physical objects,
but conceptual groupings. They get the attributes that belong to the
groupings - name, operator, contact information, network, reference,
Wikipedia, website,  They do not get attributes of the physical objects
that compose them - those attributes belong to the objects and are not
generally understood to be inherited from the relation.

I think you you may have been confused because multipolygons are such a
powerful concept once you 'get it' - and physical tags on multipolygons are
Just Fine since multipolygons are physical objects. But multipolygons are a
special case among relations.  (The older scheme for tagging riverbanks is
another special case, but I consider it to be a legacy, and do not use it
for new mapping work.)

Specific types of relations may have further constraints. I can't speak to
public transport ones (since I don't map them). The only relations I use
are multipolygon, route (road, walking, hiking, horse, bicycle, ski,
snowmobile), boundary, and very occasionally a group (which I realize has
no recognized rendering but I don't know how else to tag the things). I do
waterways as multipolygons (one of several recognized ways to do them). I
don't do the networks for rail, power, or pipeline infrastructure - I map
the physical objects when I come across them in the field and consider them
significant landmarks, but don't try hard to tie them into the networks -
I'll leave that for someone else. I don't map complex traffic regulations
at all. For this reason, I can't speak to the specialized relations that
are used in these things, but I strongly suspect that they follow similar
rules of 'physical tags only on the physical objects and relations tagged
with only those attributes that conceptually 

Re: [Tagging] Public Transport Timetables

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 5:07 PM Leif Rasmussen <354...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Integrating GTFS seems like a much better idea than adding actual
> schedules to OpenStreetMap.  I had not considered this previously because I
> did not understand how GTFS is used worldwide.  Perhaps it would be
> possible to start something like a new gtfs.openstreetmap.org (which
> would be similar to transit.land and transitfeeds.com, but with a focus
> of OpenStreetMap integration) for hosting GTFS feeds that could be
> integrated into OSM.  That would allow for much easier integration and
> maintenance.
>

Easier still would be to use existing feeds.  The only copyright issue
involved iswhether or not those
feeds permit "deep linking" and I think most do.

Copying what Google has done successfully seems like a better option than
> creating a big, out of date mess.
>

Google has put a lot of thought into it.  It's possible, of course, that
the current GTFS now evolved from
more primitive beginnings and has a few things that might be bettter if
starting from scratch.
Nevertheless, it seems like a workable system and, more importantly, it's
already in use and some
organizations use it to make their route information public.  I don't think
that wheel needs to be
re-invented.

I think that creating a new GTFS server would be better than using transit
> land or transitfeeds.com, because OSM would have full control over what
> happened to the servers and which licencing was used.
>

I think that anything other than full mirroring, in the same way the OSM
database is mirrored by other
tile providers, would be a mistake.  And even full mirroring would be
unnecessary for this usage.  I
see an OSM GTFS server, if it comes into existence, as a way for mappers to
create GTFS feeds
for routes that don't currently have them.  And, if we're able to use
something like transitland or
transitfeeds for that purpose, we don't even need an OSM server (unless we
don't trust their data
or trust them to stay in existence, for some reason).

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

Re: [Tagging] Public Transport Timetables

[Leif Rasmussen]

Integrating GTFS seems like a much better idea than adding actual schedules
to OpenStreetMap.  I had not considered this previously because I did not
understand how GTFS is used worldwide.  Perhaps it would be possible to
start something like a new gtfs.openstreetmap.org (which would be similar
to transit.land and transitfeeds.com, but with a focus of OpenStreetMap
integration) for hosting GTFS feeds that could be integrated into OSM.
That would allow for much easier integration and maintenance.

Copying what Google has done successfully seems like a better option than
creating a big, out of date mess.

I think that creating a new GTFS server would be better than using transit
land or transitfeeds.com, because OSM would have full control over what
happened to the servers and which licencing was used.

Does anyone with experience in GTFS know how an integration like that could
work?  Also, is what I am imagining even possible?

Thanks,
Leif Rasmussen
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 8. Nov 2018, at 02:59, Dave Swarthout  wrote:
> 
> To my way of thinking, a tag in the relation implicitly applies to every 
> member of the relation. It's not "visible" to us mappers but it's there 
> nonetheless


tags on the way apply to the way, those on the relation to tag relation as a 
whole. There is no general inheritance from the relation to its members.


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

Re: [Tagging] Public Transport Timetables

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 1:01 AM Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
> Which page would we prefer - the current departures or the full day?
>

All of them. :)

Seriously, which one I'd want would depend upon circumstances.  For
planning a journey at
some as-yet-undecided point in the future I'd want to see the full
timetable covering all service
days.  For planning a journey on a whim today, the daily timetable.  If I
found myself dumped near
a bus stop (car breakdown or whatever) then the next departure.  And if I'm
waiting for a bus
that seems to be running late, the live timetable showing how buses are
actually running (more
than once I've missed a bus after a timetable change because the driver was
running to the
old timetable that was ten minutes earlier).

So,  ideally, all of them.  But that makes it complicated to map and to
use.  I'd pick one of them, but
what if on a particular route that one isn't available but the others are?
So I'm tempted to go for
a scheme which allows any or all of them to be specified - gtfs:full=* and
gtfs:next=* and the mapper
can add as many of them as desired.  Maybe have the tag more general so it
can link to non-gtfs
timetables on operator websites too.  Maybe we don't even have to specify
gtfs as we don't really
care the underlying mechanism for ordinary users.  However, routers would
probably want the
raw GTFS tables, so we need to accommodate that.

And please don't forget the possibility of a single route having two
operator whose GTFS feeds
list only their own vehicles on that route.  The tag has to deal with
that.  And semi-colon separators
aren't viable when they're a valid component (although deprecated) in URLs
with query strings.

I know that not everywhere has a usable GTFS, but for those places that do,
> it would appear to be a pretty simple process to make use of it! :-)
>

I think it would make sense to have a tag for it even if we had gone ahead
with shoehorning
timetables into relations, because if it's available for a route it's a lot
less work and maintenance to
use GTFS.  Even more sense, though, for mappers to input timetable stuff
into GTFS somewhere
if the operators don't provide it rather than shoehorn into a relation.

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

[Dave Swarthout]

Also agreed.
I'm not saying anything about the route tag. We're talking about tags other
than route or type, which actually set up the relation. The additional tags
that describe the route or multipolygon either go on the relation or the
ways depending on their scope, but not both.

On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 5:31 PM Peter Elderson  wrote:

> And route=foot does not mean al the components are footpaths.
>
> Op do 8 nov. 2018 om 11:05 schreef Andy Townsend :
>
>> On 08/11/2018 01:59, Dave Swarthout wrote:
>> > To my way of thinking, a tag in the relation implicitly applies to
>> > every member of the relation.
>>
>> No.  Think of a long-distance footpath - that may have an operator, or
>> it may have tags that apply specifically to the footpath route. It may
>> also run along a road for a short distance - it doesn't mean that the
>> footpath "operator" is the "operator" of the road.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Andy
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
>
> --
> Vr gr Peter Elderson
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

[Dave Swarthout]

I totally agree, Andy. So yes, if someone has tagged the relation with an
operator and in reality, there are different operators (or none) for some
parts of the route, those parts should have tags to indicate the change.

My illustrative case involves a pipeline that (AFAIK) has only one operator
(oops, owner) so it's not the same situaiton. But don't hold me to
specifics. I'm trying to illustrate a point and my choice of tag and value
to do it may have been wrong. I just checked Wikipedia and the pipeline is
owned by the Alyeska Pipeline Service Company so please substitute owner
for operator just for the purposes of the illustration.

At any rate, using my reasoning, if an operator or owner tag doesn't apply
to the route as a whole, it should appear on the individual ways and not in
the relation. However, for the TAPS, such items as owner apply to the
entire route, just as do Wikidata and Wikipedia tags, substance, etc. IMO,
those tags belong on the relation and are not necessary on the individual
ways.

Best,
Dave




On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 5:05 PM Andy Townsend  wrote:

> On 08/11/2018 01:59, Dave Swarthout wrote:
> > To my way of thinking, a tag in the relation implicitly applies to
> > every member of the relation.
>
> No.  Think of a long-distance footpath - that may have an operator, or
> it may have tags that apply specifically to the footpath route. It may
> also run along a road for a short distance - it doesn't mean that the
> footpath "operator" is the "operator" of the road.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Andy
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

[Peter Elderson]

And route=foot does not mean al the components are footpaths.

Op do 8 nov. 2018 om 11:05 schreef Andy Townsend :

> On 08/11/2018 01:59, Dave Swarthout wrote:
> > To my way of thinking, a tag in the relation implicitly applies to
> > every member of the relation.
>
> No.  Think of a long-distance footpath - that may have an operator, or
> it may have tags that apply specifically to the footpath route. It may
> also run along a road for a short distance - it doesn't mean that the
> footpath "operator" is the "operator" of the road.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Andy
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Vr gr Peter Elderson
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

[Andy Townsend]

On 08/11/2018 01:59, Dave Swarthout wrote:
To my way of thinking, a tag in the relation implicitly applies to 
every member of the relation.


No.  Think of a long-distance footpath - that may have an operator, or 
it may have tags that apply specifically to the footpath route. It may 
also run along a road for a short distance - it doesn't mean that the 
footpath "operator" is the "operator" of the road.


Best Regards,

Andy


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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tramtrack on highway

[SelfishSeahorse]

On Wed, 7 Nov 2018 at 23:17, Paul Johnson  wrote:
>
> Moot point, sidewalks should be mapped as separate ways for the same reason.

I don't want to start another sidewalk discussion, but please note
that sidewalks as separate ways don't solve all problems. Especially
in residential areas without marked pedestrian crossings or lowered
kerbs, connecting sidewalks to streets (in order to prevent islands)
is arbitrary.

Besides, the second problem i described (position of traffic lanes
relative to tram tracks) would still be unsolved.

Regards
Markus

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