As a dedicated mapper of public transport in Birmingham I would love to participate but I currently have limited access to email in deepest rural france. I hope I dont havz to redo a lot of work! Thomas Im quite proud of Birmingham city centre bus stops perhaps q different icon from the curent osmarenderer one would be an improvement?
Regards Brian 2009/6/3 <[email protected]> > Send Talk-transit mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Talk-transit digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Public transport workshop in Germany (Peter Miller) > 2. Public transport schema (Sebastian Schwarz) > 3. Re: Public transport schema (Thomas Wood) > 4. Re: Public transport schema (Peter Miller) > 5. Re: Public transport schema (Paul Johnson) > 6. Re: Public transport schema (Thomas Wood) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 13:04:22 +0100 > From: Peter Miller <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Talk-transit] Public transport workshop in Germany > To: Sarah Hoffmann <[email protected]>, [email protected] > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed; delsp=yes > > > On 1 Jun 2009, at 23:09, Sarah Hoffmann wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 01, 2009 at 08:05:30AM +0100, Peter Miller wrote: > >>> For railway stations it can be sure that there is exactly one symbol > >>> on the line of the railway neatly aligned to the middle of the way. > >>> With the new schema a lot of preprocessing and guess work will be > >>> required to get the same result when stop places contain multiple > >>> stopping places and/or access points. > >>> > >>> The current situation with bus stops is more messy. (Just see > >>> Birmigham which seems to entirely consist of bus stops.) While > >>> stop places in the new schema allow to clean this up a bit, again, > >>> the renderer only has the choice to either paint two many > >>> symbols (all access points or all stopping points) or badly > >>> guess where to put the single point. > >> > >> Which rendering view are you using? for the main Mapnik view on > >> openstreetmap there are no bus stops until one zooms in to zoom 17 at > >> which point there are certainly lots of bus stops (accesses). > > > > Yes, I had Mapnik in mind although the problem is a more general one. > > There are no bus stops for lower zoom level because they would > > completely clutter any map. > > > >> Even at zoom level 17 it may be appropriate to render bus stops at > >> the > >> Stop Place level of detail (with one blob for two Accesses/bus > >> stops on > >> either sides of the road, or one blob for three Accesses/bus stands > >> in a > >> row on one side of the road). > > > > Rendering the Stop Place is only useful, if there is additional > > information > > available, e.g. the name. But how this can be displayed without > > overwhelming the user is an unsolved problem indeed. However, I was > > hoping of resolving the rendering of the lower zooms first. > > A Stop Place should have a name - I believe that is part of the > definition of a Stop Place that it does have a recognised name. > However it may sometimes just be appropriate to to put a single dot on > the map for a Stop Place without a name and will be less cluttered > that every Access. > > > > > > > Actually, looking at Birmingham in the ?PNVKarte > > > > http://www.?pnvkarte.de/?lat=52.47884&lon=-1.89495&zoom=17<http://www./?pnvkarte.de/?lat=52.47884&lon=-1.89495&zoom=17> > > > > I see that all bus stops in the inner city belong to the same > > stop place, namely "city center". I know that this is very common in > > the UK (and very frustrating for the visitor, but that's another > > story). > > How would you fit that into the proposed model? A stopping place and > > access point for each bus_stop and then all of them into one stop > > place > > relation? Subdivide them by street? How do the regular users see them, > > as single bus stops or as quais of one and the same stop? > > To be clear. Birmingham City Centre is too big to be a Stop Place > (where all points should be within a few minutes walk from each > other). 'Birmingham City Centre' is actually a locality name in > NaPTAN. Localities are used for named settlements or suburbs. Some > authorities create a locality for the centre of large places. > > > > >>> Thus, if above example is modelled as two stop places with > >>> oneway=yes > >> > >>> and both stop places are put into a stop place group > >>> "Waffenplatzstrasse" > >>> (together with the two bus stops, which are incidentally directional > >>> as well) all necessary information for the renderer should be there. > >>> Is this within the intended use of stop places and stop place > >>> groups? > >>> The Wiki is not very clear on this point. > >> > >> I agree that a direction does seem to be needed, both for the > >> Stopping > >> Places and also possibly for the Accesses. It is not clear how one > >> should code the direction - A one-way tag doesn't seem to encode > >> all the > >> necessary information. > > > > This would be more a directional information that encodes in which > > direction the vehicle will continue its journey from the stopping > > point. This would indeed suffice. Unfortunately, it brings us back to > > the still unresolved question of forward/backward tagging, which > > seems to go nowhere. > > In NaPTAN the Accesses (bus stops) have a bearing N, NE, E etc, in > which the vehicle leaves the stop. Slightly tricky to interpret with > the mapping data, but the NaPTAN dataset if road dataset neutral so > can't reference any particular road data set (OS, OSM, Navteq). > > > > >> I would expect that Waffenplatzstrasse would consist of one Stop > >> Place > >> with two accesses and two Stopping Places. Is that sufficient or > >> should > >> each Access have its own Stop Place and these be grouped into a Stop > >> Place Group? If one uses one Stop Place then how are the individual > >> Accesses and Stopping Places associated with each other? The Accesses > >> need names that indicate direction, such as 'Northbound', 'towards > >> city > >> centre', 'Sto A', 'Stand A', 'Bay A', Gate 13' etc. In the UK this > >> information is encoded in the 'indicator' field and the Name for the > >> Access (called Common Name) tends to be shared with the other > >> Accesses in > >> the Stop Place. > > > > Do you mean stopping place here? I'd expect this indicator to be > > unique > > for all accesses in a stop place. > > It is good practice (that is not always followed or appropriate) for > all Acesses within a Stop Place to have the same name, but to all have > unique indicators. I would encourage us to adopt this approach. > > > > > > > What is the relation between accesses and stopping places? There is an > > example in the proposal of a stopping place having multiple accesses. > > Can one access also be used for multiple stopping places? > > I would suggest that where one creates an Access but no Stopping Place > that the system (or some tool) guesses that a Stopping Place on the > nearest highway/Railway is required and that they should be connected > with a relation. > > Where one Stopping Place is served by two Accesses or where a single > Access serves two Stopping Places or where there is ambiguity about > which highway a vehicle might stop on then we will need to create the > Stopping Places and relations manually. > > > > > >> Just to note at this point that I am concerned that we will run out > >> of > >> Stop Place levels as we get into this. IFOPT allows recursive Stop > >> Places which is wonderfully general but possibly hard for renders and > >> for our relation handling. We may want to revisit this later to allow > >> multilevel Stop Places. > > > > As a programmer I love the idea of recursion, as a mapper I find it > > awful. We should find something simpler. > > Ummm. I agree with your sentiments, but not necessarily with you > optimism! We could try Heathrow Airport as a worst case mapping > challenge. (one of the busiest air ports in the world). > > > > > > >> It feels to me that we need a little more time discussing and > >> developing > >> this proposal before we start tagging features with it to give us > >> more > >> time to refine the ideas. > > > > Tagging small test patches in different countries might help uncover > > weaknesses, we cannot see in a theoretical discussion. > > Absolutely, but lets settle the tag names issue before doing that. > > I would also like us to consider separating Access from Entrance and > use different tag names as per CEN feedback. Does anyone object > > Also including an option for Access Areas and Boarding Points to > complete the model mapping to CEN. > > There are some outstanding suggestions about the use of route (tagging > ways or tagging relations) which we need to bottom. Also, I feel the > Line Variant element could do with a little review which I will do > unless anyone objects. > > > Regards, > > > > Peter > > > > > > > Sarah > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 18:34:39 +0200 > From: Sebastian Schwarz <[email protected]> > Subject: [Talk-transit] Public transport schema > To: [email protected] > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes > > Hi! > > Well, I have been en-route the last days and thus did not have time to > respond to any of the numerous mails covering almost all aspects of > the new proposal relating to public transport. But I see the > discussion sort of loosing sight of the mappers. From my point of > view, we should find a good compromise which primarily serves the > mappers and not the CEN. So, the schema should not be as compliant as > possible to the standards but as good as possible for the mappers - > provided with a reasonable part of standard compliance, of course. We > do not want to model Heathrow Airport (apart from that, airports have > never been part of the proposal!) but we want to start with the bus > station around the corner! > > @Gerrit Lammert: > Sorry!!! Initially, we completely forgot to mention other proposals we > used as a source of inspiration - but now, the link to your proposal > is set. Anyway, in my diploma thesis (which I am currently doing on > public transport in OSM) your proposal is not only refrenced but > analyzed, too. > > Kind regards > > > -- > Sebastian > kahlfrost.de > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 18:18:21 +0100 > From: Thomas Wood <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Talk-transit] Public transport schema > To: Sebastian Schwarz <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > Message-ID: > <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > 2009/6/2 Sebastian Schwarz <[email protected]>: > > Hi! > > > > Well, I have been en-route the last days and thus did not have time to > > respond to any of the numerous mails covering almost all aspects of > > the new proposal relating to public transport. But I see the > > discussion sort of loosing sight of the mappers. From my point of > > view, we should find a good compromise which primarily serves the > > mappers and not the CEN. So, the schema should not be as compliant as > > possible to the standards but as good as possible for the mappers - > > provided with a reasonable part of standard compliance, of course. We > > do not want to model Heathrow Airport (apart from that, airports have > > never been part of the proposal!) but we want to start with the bus > > station around the corner! > > But by it's nature as the foundation of how transportation stop areas > are represented in OSM, then airports are important as a higher tier > of transportation. By their nature, they'll often have several other > modes of transport related to them, metro, mainline rail, bus and > coach services, and they should still be seen by routing software as > an interchange that could be possibly used. > > In time, we will want to map them in excessive detail, whilst we have > the opportunity, this scheme should allow the scope for further > expansion of other transportation types. > > > > > @Gerrit Lammert: > > Sorry!!! Initially, we completely forgot to mention other proposals we > > used as a source of inspiration - but now, the link to your proposal > > is set. Anyway, in my diploma thesis (which I am currently doing on > > public transport in OSM) your proposal is not only refrenced but > > analyzed, too. > > > > Kind regards > > > > > > -- > > Sebastian > > kahlfrost.de > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Talk-transit mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit > > > > > > -- > Regards, > Thomas Wood > (Edgemaster) > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 22:27:55 +0100 > From: Peter Miller <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Talk-transit] Public transport schema > To: Thomas Wood <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes > > > On 2 Jun 2009, at 18:18, Thomas Wood wrote: > > > 2009/6/2 Sebastian Schwarz <[email protected]>: > >> Hi! > >> > >> Well, I have been en-route the last days and thus did not have time > >> to > >> respond to any of the numerous mails covering almost all aspects of > >> the new proposal relating to public transport. But I see the > >> discussion sort of loosing sight of the mappers. From my point of > >> view, we should find a good compromise which primarily serves the > >> mappers and not the CEN. So, the schema should not be as compliant as > >> possible to the standards but as good as possible for the mappers - > >> provided with a reasonable part of standard compliance, of course. We > >> do not want to model Heathrow Airport (apart from that, airports have > >> never been part of the proposal!) but we want to start with the bus > >> station around the corner! > > > > But by it's nature as the foundation of how transportation stop areas > > are represented in OSM, then airports are important as a higher tier > > of transportation. By their nature, they'll often have several other > > modes of transport related to them, metro, mainline rail, bus and > > coach services, and they should still be seen by routing software as > > an interchange that could be possibly used. > > > > In time, we will want to map them in excessive detail, whilst we have > > the opportunity, this scheme should allow the scope for further > > expansion of other transportation types. > > > > Firstly, can I say again how much your proposal is appreciated. We > have needed to do a thorough review of PT related tagging for > consistency for some time and your work is a great starting point. > > Secondly, can I apologise for tearing into you document and I hope we > haven't ruined you thesis but from a Wikipedia perspective this is how > good articles get written. People build something, others build on it, > some changes stick, some get challenged and removed, but the general > direction is positive. Your work certainly isn't going to gather dust > on some shelf but will be used with a vengeance very soon - I just > want to make sure that we do the design work at this stage to ensure > that it is robust before it gets extensively used. > > With reference to mappers, I really don't think we are making things > much harder for the average mapper are we? Once we agree on terms and > definitions that is. We have rationalised platforms and bus stops and > ferry quays into Accesses. We have renamed Stop Areas as Stop Places. > We have added Stopping Places and Stop Place Groups. We are proposing > a new relation binding from Accesses to Stopping Places. I am > proposing that we added Entrances and Boarding Points, but all these > are optional extras to the modelling and not something that the > average mapper needs to touch to start with. > > Regarding Heathrow Airport. The coach/bus station within the airport > is the busiest in the UK ( > http://www.milesfaster.co.uk/information/heathrow-airport/heathrow-central-bus-coach-station.htm > ) and we will of course map transport interchanges in absurd detail > when we run out of other things to do! > > CEN: My experience is that one has to be careful when one doesn't > follow standards or ignores them; the old rule, 'if you can't be good > be careful' comes to mind. For sure, there is some nonsense in > standards for geopolitical reasons, but transmodel is pretty clean and > so is IFOPT. If you cut corners in relation to a CEN standard you can > expect to come unstuck in some situation that you hadn't considered > and then you will have to bodge it. For example by assuming that each > stopping place has only one Access and one Access is only associated > with one Stopping Place. I know that because I have been there and > done it! > > What we have already is very good - we are not slavishly following > CEN, but as far as I am concerned we follow it where appropriate and > are now aware of the places where we are not following it and we are > confident that we are doing it for a good reason and that it will > work. The only section that has not been reviewed in relation to CEN > is the section about Railway Routes, Railway Lines and Line Variants > which again is close but we can still learn from CEN and clarify the > language. > > Ok... Um.... Well... So I have now just looked at the current > version of the document and noticed that you have reverted just about > all my changes over the past few days. I find that rather unnecessary > and I would like to have some clarification about why that was > necessary or useful to do that without consultation. For sure some > changes could be challenged, but all of them? No one else had > challenged them on the list on the wiki since Saturday. Fyi, Here is > the difference between the version just before I made my first changes > and the current version (they are basically the same). > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php?title=User:Oxomoa/Public_transport_schema&diff=280182&oldid=278379 > > And here is the difference between the last version I touched and the > current version. I think it is clear that a huge amount of work has > been removed without discussion, including reverting 'loading gauge' > to millimetres when it is most certainly more complex than that as I > explained; reverting Stop Place to Stop Area without explanation (a > clash with CEN terminology). Removing the alphabetical sort order for > the the railways section for no obvious reason. Removing '{{tag|route| > ferry}}' and reverting it to 'non-existent' etc etc. > > Could I politely suggest that we revert the document to the place > where Nixim left the document on the 31st having added '{{tag|route| > ferry}}'. For sure then make changes from there that you thing are > good, but do build on the previous work as this is the normal way. > > Can I also suggest that we move the page to the general wiki space and > out of your user area as this page has now definitely graduated from > being just a personal page. > > > > Regards, > > > > > Peter > > > > > Regards, > > > Peter > > > > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Talk-transit mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Regards, > > Thomas Wood > > (Edgemaster) > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Talk-transit mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 18:22:14 -0700 > From: Paul Johnson <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Talk-transit] Public transport schema > To: [email protected] > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Thomas Wood wrote: > > 2009/6/2 Sebastian Schwarz <[email protected]>: > >> Hi! > >> > >> Well, I have been en-route the last days and thus did not have time to > >> respond to any of the numerous mails covering almost all aspects of > >> the new proposal relating to public transport. But I see the > >> discussion sort of loosing sight of the mappers. From my point of > >> view, we should find a good compromise which primarily serves the > >> mappers and not the CEN. So, the schema should not be as compliant as > >> possible to the standards but as good as possible for the mappers - > >> provided with a reasonable part of standard compliance, of course. We > >> do not want to model Heathrow Airport (apart from that, airports have > >> never been part of the proposal!) but we want to start with the bus > >> station around the corner! > > > > But by it's nature as the foundation of how transportation stop areas > > are represented in OSM, then airports are important as a higher tier > > of transportation. > > Depends on the part of the world. If you're in the US, the pain in the > ass, time required and sheer expense associated with air travel starts > making Amtrak, VIARail and booking rooms on transoceanic cargo ships > starts looking like a real attractive option regardless of the distance, > relegating air travel to a more useless position than the US NCN... > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... > Name: signature.asc > Type: application/pgp-signature > Size: 260 bytes > Desc: OpenPGP digital signature > Url : > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-transit/attachments/20090602/8b78a265/attachment-0001.pgp > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 10:52:10 +0100 > From: Thomas Wood <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Talk-transit] Public transport schema > To: Paul Johnson <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > Message-ID: > <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > I am not considering air travel on a national level, international > (possibly even inter-continental) routing is an area I'd like to see > developed :) > > On 03/06/2009, Paul Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thomas Wood wrote: > >> 2009/6/2 Sebastian Schwarz <[email protected]>: > >>> Hi! > >>> > >>> Well, I have been en-route the last days and thus did not have time to > >>> respond to any of the numerous mails covering almost all aspects of > >>> the new proposal relating to public transport. But I see the > >>> discussion sort of loosing sight of the mappers. From my point of > >>> view, we should find a good compromise which primarily serves the > >>> mappers and not the CEN. So, the schema should not be as compliant as > >>> possible to the standards but as good as possible for the mappers - > >>> provided with a reasonable part of standard compliance, of course. We > >>> do not want to model Heathrow Airport (apart from that, airports have > >>> never been part of the proposal!) but we want to start with the bus > >>> station around the corner! > >> > >> But by it's nature as the foundation of how transportation stop areas > >> are represented in OSM, then airports are important as a higher tier > >> of transportation. > > > > Depends on the part of the world. If you're in the US, the pain in the > > ass, time required and sheer expense associated with air travel starts > > making Amtrak, VIARail and booking rooms on transoceanic cargo ships > > starts looking like a real attractive option regardless of the distance, > > relegating air travel to a more useless position than the US NCN... > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Regards, > Thomas Wood > (Edgemaster) > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-transit mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit > > > End of Talk-transit Digest, Vol 6, Issue 3 > ****************************************** >
_______________________________________________ Talk-transit mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
