Re: [Talk-transit] New proposal to store public transport data
See http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/533877725 for a not untypical NaPTAN bus stop ref is on a plate on the stop (and is the numerical equivalent of the Naptan Code) local_ref is on a plate on the stop, and is used to tell adjacent stops apart My guess is that there are various coding systems, and they each need to have their own tag, otherwise they'll get confused. The data user needs to know the various tags if they want to use the codes. I'd reserve ref for a unique id that can be validated on the ground (if there is one). Richard ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Summary of Public Transport Proposal Criticism - a real example from Zürich
On 01/25/2011 12:01 AM, Michał Borsuk wrote: So far, so good. Let's then take a tram line, I selected a *random* stop in the centre of Zürich, and *randomly* took tram line 10. Here's the list of routes and their conditions: ... This single line contains *23* different routes! Twenty-three routes are hidden under one tram line. Now even if we ignore the routes on which the tram runs 1, 2 or 3 times a day, then we still have *nine* routes (nbr_or_runs: 56,50,12,12,5×6). I don't know where you got these 23 routes. Tram line 10 in Zürich is a Y-Line. One terminal station at one end and two alternating accessed terminal stations at the other end. Period. This gives exactly four routes (two variants in each direction). And where did you got the other 19 routes? Teddych ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Summary of Public Transport Proposal Criticism
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 10:38 PM, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 8:32 AM, Dominik Mahrer (Teddy) te...@teddy.ch wrote: - stop_area is not needed/too complicated: According to taginfo there are already 64'500 stop area relations in the OSM database (10'500 public transport/oxomoa, 1'500 stop place, 51'500 unified stoparea). I think you'll find that the bulk of what you ascribe to unified stoparea (which I take to mean type=site relations) are in fact the UK NaPTan import (and not due to mappers). Richard Oh, and that 48,525 of them were added in this changeset! http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/3891683 Richard ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
[Talk-transit] Public Transport Line Diagram
Hi guys, i'm trying to follow your discussion on PT proposals. Was unable to participate due to lack of time. Now sick in bed, I hope to be able to at least dig through the discussion archives so i can try and add my two cents worth later on. Was wondering if the planned changes to approach in mapping public transport would have an impact on this service: http://78.46.81.38/public_transport.html While it behaves quite nicely for the examples provided there, it works very bad for PT in Poland. Compare this result: http://78.46.81.38/api/sketch-line?network=ZTM+Pozna%C5%84ref=1 with the appropariate relation in osm: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/79152 Why is this so not working for Poznan ? Regards, Qlex ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Public Transport Line Diagram
Maybe you have to put roles forward_stop and backward_stop to stops if it's 1 relation for 1 line. It seems most stops have no roles at all Anyway you should also order the relations members by type ways - nodes for stops. Or the problem might be the fact that some stops are railway = halt and some other railway = tram_stop? Anyway check a working example: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/365296 - Line SIR1 network APS Mobilità ciao Tiziano On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 18:30, Wojciech Kulesza wkule...@gmail.com wrote: Hi guys, i'm trying to follow your discussion on PT proposals. Was unable to participate due to lack of time. Now sick in bed, I hope to be able to at least dig through the discussion archives so i can try and add my two cents worth later on. Was wondering if the planned changes to approach in mapping public transport would have an impact on this service: http://78.46.81.38/public_transport.html While it behaves quite nicely for the examples provided there, it works very bad for PT in Poland. Compare this result: http://78.46.81.38/api/sketch-line?network=ZTM+Pozna%C5%84ref=1 with the appropariate relation in osm: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/79152 Why is this so not working for Poznan ? Regards, Qlex ___ 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] Public Transport Line Diagram
Am 25.01.2011 18:30, Wojciech Kulesza: Was wondering if the planned changes to approach in mapping public transport would have an impact on this service: http://78.46.81.38/public_transport.html While it behaves quite nicely for the examples provided there, it works very bad for PT in Poland. Compare this result: http://78.46.81.38/api/sketch-line?network=ZTM+Pozna%C5%84ref=1 http://78.46.81.38/api/sketch-line?network=ZTM+Pozna%C5%84ref=1 with the appropariate relation in osm: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/79152 Just compare your relation with the working one :) http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/361959 On first sight i'm wondering why you are mixing railway=halt and railway=tram_stop? Isn't all of it a tram line? Additionally you are missing from= and to= in your relation. Claudius ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Public Transport Line Diagram
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 18:45:58 +0100, Tiziano D'Angelo wrote: Maybe you have to put roles forward_stop and backward_stop to stops if it's 1 relation for 1 line. It seems most stops have no roles at all Anyway you should also order the relations members by type ways - nodes for stops. Or the problem might be the fact that some stops are railway = halt and some other railway = tram_stop? I found similar issues -- I wrote to who seemingly wrote the code, to access the source code and maybe provide a patch, but haven't got any response so far. Does anyone know if the code is publicly hosted? David -- . ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://deb.li/dapal `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
[Talk-transit] Public Transport Line Diagram
Just compare your relation with the working one :) http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/361959 On first sight i'm wondering why you are mixing railway=halt and railway=tram_stop? Isn't all of it a tram line? Additionally you are missing from= and to= in your relation. Claudius This was maybe not clear from my first email. I was not the author of those relations. I simply used openstreetbrowser.org project to identify already-existing relations for trams/buses in Poznan/Poland and used them in that OSM API. Is there anything i can do in order to get them in the correct format? I already got involved in some editing of OSM, through Portlach (flashbased tool), but this was more on adding some missing escalators and fixing non-connected islands in case of intersections. Regards, Qlex ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
