Re: [Talk-GB] Bus routes and names
That's a very London-centric view of life. Numbers are not necessarily unique locally once you get out into the sticks. Stuart Sent from my iPhone > On 23 Aug 2014, at 14:58, "David Woolley" wrote: > >> On 23/08/14 14:50, Amaroussi-OSM wrote: >> Maybe I could try “London Buses 38 → Victoria”? > > I don't think you need the network. The number should be locally unique > without that. People don't qualify bus numbers by "London bus" in real life. > >> >> I just wanted to reduce the time it takes to find and update >> relationin JOSM, given that the much-needed modernisation > > is a big thing. > > It is precisely to aid finding them in JOSM that I prefer to have the number > first. > > > > ___ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Bus routes and names
Sorry for doing experiments on the mailing list, but what about: 38 Bus 38 Bus → Victoria If this goes well I will put it in the wiki and reference the mailing list. After that we need to talk about the future of coach routes. On 23 Aug 2014, at 14:57, David Woolley wrote: > On 23/08/14 14:50, Amaroussi-OSM wrote: >> Maybe I could try “London Buses 38 → Victoria”? > > I don't think you need the network. The number should be locally unique > without that. People don't qualify bus numbers by "London bus" in real life. > >> >> I just wanted to reduce the time it takes to find and update >> relationin JOSM, given that the much-needed modernisation > > is a big thing. > > It is precisely to aid finding them in JOSM that I prefer to have the number > first. > > > > ___ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Bus routes and names
On 23/08/14 14:50, Amaroussi-OSM wrote: Maybe I could try “London Buses 38 → Victoria”? I don't think you need the network. The number should be locally unique without that. People don't qualify bus numbers by "London bus" in real life. I just wanted to reduce the time it takes to find and update relationin JOSM, given that the much-needed modernisation > is a big thing. It is precisely to aid finding them in JOSM that I prefer to have the number first. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Bus routes and names
Maybe I could try “London Buses 38 → Victoria”? I just wanted to reduce the time it takes to find and update relation in JOSM, given that the much-needed modernisation is a big thing. Amaroussi (still trying to figure out why Mail insists in replying directly to sender!) On 23 Aug 2014, at 14:35, David Woolley wrote: > On 23/08/14 14:12, David Woolley wrote: >> I think that giving both to and from destinations is going to be wrong, >> unless there is are route variants that have different combinations. > > However, except that the wiki example uses a clearly directed =>, this is > basically the format used in the examples cited for the route master wiki > entry, so it could be argued that they are doing the correct thing here, even > though I would prefer to have the number first. > > ___ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Bus routes and names
On 23/08/14 14:12, David Woolley wrote: I think that giving both to and from destinations is going to be wrong, unless there is are route variants that have different combinations. However, except that the wiki example uses a clearly directed =>, this is basically the format used in the examples cited for the route master wiki entry, so it could be argued that they are doing the correct thing here, even though I would prefer to have the number first. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Bus routes and names
Hi, I am a JOSM defector from Potlatch 2 so I might sound a bit odd. Directions will definitely be necessary because I have to modernise a majority of routes (most of which are outdated). The modernised routes will use route_master so that all variations may be respected where it occurs. I am giving priority to modernising Borismaster routes so that those interested can create a map of Borismaster routes. I try to make the name as useful for all editors from all corners of the globe, and have it make sense as much as possible because I want reduce updating times for editors when London Buses implements alignment changes or long term diversions (about 30 days or more). I rejected the format "999 bound" because it would confuse with other networks such as the LCN. I am personally not aware of figure of eight routes (except for teeny ones at terminuses themselves where there are gyratories). I get the idea of the direction from the Underground signs where they say “Victoria line northbound” and “District line westbound”. A compromise scheme could take out the “route” and make it based on what the announcer says on the iBus, like "London Buses 38 to Victoria”. Thoughts prior to consideration for implementation? Also, it would be nice to have a regular bus routes guru who uses JOSM, once the routes and stops are modernised to the public transport scheme. Keeping the routes up to date would entice TfL to go to OSM. On 23 Aug 2014, at 14:12, David Woolley wrote: > On 20/08/14 20:45, Antje Maroussi wrote: >> Whereas I use "London Buses route 24 Northbound” to help editors each >> variant so they can put it to the right bus stop, max93600 has been >> changing them carelessly with the comment "Modifications diverses”: >> in this editor’s recent edits, so that both directions of Bus 24 read >> "Relation: Bus 24 : Grosvenor Road ↔ Royal Free Hospital (see 3523629 >> v25 and 3523630 v26). > > My take on this is that, assuming there is no name regularly used by the > public (and which applies to the whole of the mapped route): > > - route names should contain just enough to distinguish them from other route > relations in the same area; > - as far as possible should reflect how a member of the public might refer to > them; > - sort relative to other route relations in such a way that it is easy to > find the correct one within a long list; > - ideally sort correctly relative to ones without a name. > > I think that giving both to and from destinations is going to be wrong, > unless there is are route variants that have different combinations. I think > there is a case for using the destination when using route masters, as the > destination will appear on the front of the bus. However, many people will > use buses for short hops and may think of them in terms of the direction > indicated on the stop, which is normally given as a place name much closer > than the final destination, or in terms of the local direction of travel. > However, the local direction of travel may be opposite to the general trend, > so may not be useful for the overall route. > > I like the idea of the general trend direction, as it is a simple rule, but I > think final destination may be more appropriate in some cases. An extreme > case is circular routes. The cases near me are split into different route > numbers for clockwise and anti-clockwise, but both list the same final > destination. If sharing a route number, I think those would need to be > distinguished using clockwise and anti-clockwise. (Are there any figure of > eight routes?) > > Going back to your version, I think including the network also amounts to > putting metadata in an invented name. Generally, you will not get the same > route number with different networks, in the same area, as that would confuse > the public. The exception might be national versus local buses, but that > doesn't need the full network name. > > Considering the non-route master case, particularly, putting just the route > reference as the name can clash with other networks, like cycling networks. > Either you have to give buses a privileged status, or you need to include the > fact that it is a bus route. > > If one throws in the sorting consideration, it is best to have the route > number first. That is also consistent with common usage of bus names: "catch > the [number] 21 bus". Common usage might also include "towards ", but > may be an intermediate place, or a local direction of travel, so might > not be useful for naming the whole route. > > I'd therefore prefer: > > 999 Bus bound > 999 Bus towards > or > 999 Bus [anti-]clockwise > > as appeared most useful in the context, and always giving precedence to some > established name for the route. > > Incidentally, looking at one of the examples you gave, they had placed an > origin in the name, but not in the metadata, so I think they may have had a > poor understanding of
Re: [Talk-GB] Bus routes and names
On 20/08/14 20:45, Antje Maroussi wrote: Whereas I use "London Buses route 24 Northbound” to help editors each variant so they can put it to the right bus stop, max93600 has been changing them carelessly with the comment "Modifications diverses”: in this editor’s recent edits, so that both directions of Bus 24 read "Relation: Bus 24 : Grosvenor Road ↔ Royal Free Hospital (see 3523629 v25 and 3523630 v26). My take on this is that, assuming there is no name regularly used by the public (and which applies to the whole of the mapped route): - route names should contain just enough to distinguish them from other route relations in the same area; - as far as possible should reflect how a member of the public might refer to them; - sort relative to other route relations in such a way that it is easy to find the correct one within a long list; - ideally sort correctly relative to ones without a name. I think that giving both to and from destinations is going to be wrong, unless there is are route variants that have different combinations. I think there is a case for using the destination when using route masters, as the destination will appear on the front of the bus. However, many people will use buses for short hops and may think of them in terms of the direction indicated on the stop, which is normally given as a place name much closer than the final destination, or in terms of the local direction of travel. However, the local direction of travel may be opposite to the general trend, so may not be useful for the overall route. I like the idea of the general trend direction, as it is a simple rule, but I think final destination may be more appropriate in some cases. An extreme case is circular routes. The cases near me are split into different route numbers for clockwise and anti-clockwise, but both list the same final destination. If sharing a route number, I think those would need to be distinguished using clockwise and anti-clockwise. (Are there any figure of eight routes?) Going back to your version, I think including the network also amounts to putting metadata in an invented name. Generally, you will not get the same route number with different networks, in the same area, as that would confuse the public. The exception might be national versus local buses, but that doesn't need the full network name. Considering the non-route master case, particularly, putting just the route reference as the name can clash with other networks, like cycling networks. Either you have to give buses a privileged status, or you need to include the fact that it is a bus route. If one throws in the sorting consideration, it is best to have the route number first. That is also consistent with common usage of bus names: "catch the [number] 21 bus". Common usage might also include "towards ", but may be an intermediate place, or a local direction of travel, so might not be useful for naming the whole route. I'd therefore prefer: 999 Bus bound 999 Bus towards or 999 Bus [anti-]clockwise as appeared most useful in the context, and always giving precedence to some established name for the route. Incidentally, looking at one of the examples you gave, they had placed an origin in the name, but not in the metadata, so I think they may have had a poor understanding of metadata. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Bus routes and names (Addendum and extra info)
Take note that just now I have partially reverted the two changesets at https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/24896888 on the basis of the two changesets by max93600 causing crucial bearing information to be missing. The routes I have to roll back are the ones that follow thehttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route_master, a part of the current Public Transport scheme. The routes using the scheme were out of date prior to me updating the routes. I will send a kind message to max93600 so the user knows that the preference for naming is “London Buses route ## (Direction)”. I said to lefty74 in June 2014 that since transport maps usually gets the route numbers from the ref tag, and that we are not just mapping for the renderers, "London Buses route xx” makes the relations a lot more descriptive to editors and users, especially on JOSM. It's not like we were going to suddenly set the refs to "TfL-xx". ;-) Well, I did my best to make London bus routes less rubbish than it used to be. Amaroussi (Struggling to get my Mail App on my Mac to properly reply to the mailing list). ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Bus routes and names (Addendum and extra info)
FWIW, I have checked the TfL source data, and the 19 is indeed operated by London General and not Transdev. Regards Stuart Sent from my iPhone > On 20 Aug 2014, at 20:57, "Antje Ryberg" wrote: > > I should apologise for sending the message under the incorrect name. Also, > check Route 19 at http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3969604: I don’t > remember it being operated by Transdev: more like London General. > ___ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Bus routes and names (Addendum and extra info)
I should apologise for sending the message under the incorrect name. Also, check Route 19 at http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3969604: I don’t remember it being operated by Transdev: more like London General. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Bus routes and names
Hello, I don’t know what is going on: recently, I have been modernising London’s bus routes to the current public transport scheme as the Wiki recommended, which each variant having a direction. However, the user “max93600” has been playing around with the name of each variant. Whereas I use "London Buses route 24 Northbound” to help editors each variant so they can put it to the right bus stop, max93600 has been changing them carelessly with the comment "Modifications diverses”: in this editor’s recent edits, so that both directions of Bus 24 read "Relation: Bus 24 : Grosvenor Road ↔ Royal Free Hospital (see 3523629 v25 and 3523630 v26). That causes confusion to editors because JOSM uses the name field to identify each variant. I’m only going by the book to update the routes to current alignments but how should I approach this without driving everyone insane? Thanks. signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
