Re: [Talk-transit] [Tagging] Public Transport Timetables
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 creating a big, out of date mess.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 ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] [Tagging] Public Transport Timetables
On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 12:07 AM OSMDoudou < 19b350d2-b1b3-4edb-ad96-288ea1238...@gmx.com> wrote: > > Even if you can make it fit, it's not necessarily a good idea to do it. > > I'm thinking of the Hoover Dustette. > > Excuse my ignorance. You’re thinking to what ? > The Hoover Dustette was a cylinder vacuum cleaner. The impeller had no protective guard since it was set so far inside the machine that the British Standard Finger (yes, there is such a thing) could not reach it and therefore it was not a danger. Not a danger until somebody found himself sexually attracted to something that was warm, throbbed and sucked. It didn't end well for him. Nor for the others that tried the same thing. The excuses they came up with for how they had their "accident" were amusing. Moral which applies to this thread: even if you can make it fit, it may not be a good idea to do so. > I'm not sure that a wiki would be the optimal architecture for this if we > ended up with many GTFS feeds that were interrogated frequently. > > Problem solved already, it seems: http://transitfeeds.com. > Looks good, apart from their problem loading Google Maps. If only there were some other map they could use instead. :) I think that, unless there are serious flaws with GTFS, we should figure out a way to tag it. Another problem I thought of is whether it should go on individual stops or route relations. Simplicity and data integrity says on route relations. The ability for an ordinary user to use the query tool on the standard map to find which buses stop at a certain stop and at what times says on bus/train stops. -- Paul ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] [Tagging] Public Transport Timetables
On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 5:08 PM Jo wrote: > (started writing this several hours ago) > > And another that goes into full detail, listing all the departures at the > first stop and then lists all stops, with the most common times between > stops as roles. For this we would need separate public_transport=timetable > relations. > > I've been trying how that could work and I can confirm what everybody > already knew: it's a lot of work, even for lines that seem relatively > simple at first sight! :-) An incredible time sink. > And it can go stale, very quickly. Sure, there are places where the same route has operated to the same schedule since time immemorial, but there are other places where timetables change on whim. And it's re-inventing the wheel. GTFS already exists. Could we do better? Maybe, maybe not. Could we convince operators to duplicate their effort in maintaining GTFS and our alternative? I very much doubt it. Could we convince data consumers to support our format as well as GTFS? I very much doubt that too. This is not just re-inventing the wheel, it's insisting everyone has to fit our wheel as well as the wheel they already have. Good luck with that. What we can do is come up with a tag to place on a route that points at a GTFS feed on the web. That feed could be published by the operator or by an independent organization. We could perhaps encourage mappers to generate feeds where the operator doesn't provide them and maybe even go so far as to run a web server hosting those feeds until such time as a more official feed is available. Even offer an alternative feed that our tag points to when the official feed is known to be seriously incorrect. I think we could (probably should) have a tag linking to the operator's timetable whether or not a GTFS feed is available. Even the query tool of the standard map exposes links that can be clicked on. That doesn't require a third-party app to make the info available to an ordinary user. So, an interesting exercise. One that (perhaps) had to be tried to determine if it was a good idea or not. And maybe there's room for a sloppy "once a day" or "once a week" tag on minor routes that will probably never get a GTFS feed. -- Paul ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
