Re: [Talk-transit] Is 'Transit' and 'Public Transport' the same thing?

[Richard Mann]

I thought "transit" was American for local buses, occasionally extended to
metro and local rail. It's only virtue is that it's a single word. Public
transport is better.

Richard

On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 11:41 PM, Frankie Roberto  wrote:

>
> On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 3:28 PM, Peter Miller wrote:
>
>>
>> I notice that Frankie has created a new Tram page  (no content yet but
>> it will come).
>
>
> Yup!
>
>
>> Is 'transit' a synonym  for 'public transport'? or not. If not then
>> what is the difference?
>
>
> For me, as a native British English speaker, "public transport" is the term
> that encompasses trains, trams, buses & (perhaps to a lesser extent) planes.
>
>
> I wouldn't ever user the term "transit" really. The most common association
> would be the Ford Transit Van! I'm also vaguely aware of the term "mass
> transit". I've always assumed "transit" to by synonymous with "transport"
> though - ie applicable to all forms of transport, including private
> transport.
>
> That's just me though - I'm well aware that other languages, and other
> dialects of English (and perhaps even other people within the UK) will have
> different interpretations...
>
> Which terms sound more natural to other people on this list?
>
> Frankie
>
> --
> Frankie Roberto
> Experience Designer, Rattle
> 0114 2706977
> http://www.rattlecentral.com
>
>
> ___
> 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] Is 'Transit' and 'Public Transport' the same thing?

[Frankie Roberto]

On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 3:28 PM, Peter Miller wrote:

>
> I notice that Frankie has created a new Tram page  (no content yet but
> it will come).


Yup!


> Is 'transit' a synonym  for 'public transport'? or not. If not then
> what is the difference?


For me, as a native British English speaker, "public transport" is the term
that encompasses trains, trams, buses & (perhaps to a lesser extent) planes.


I wouldn't ever user the term "transit" really. The most common association
would be the Ford Transit Van! I'm also vaguely aware of the term "mass
transit". I've always assumed "transit" to by synonymous with "transport"
though - ie applicable to all forms of transport, including private
transport.

That's just me though - I'm well aware that other languages, and other
dialects of English (and perhaps even other people within the UK) will have
different interpretations...

Which terms sound more natural to other people on this list?

Frankie

-- 
Frankie Roberto
Experience Designer, Rattle
0114 2706977
http://www.rattlecentral.com
___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

[Talk-transit] Is 'Transit' and 'Public Transport' the same thing?

[Peter Miller]

I notice that Frankie has created a new Tram page  (no content yet but  
it will come).

I also noticed that he has categorised it as 'Category:Public  
Transport' and also as 'Category:Transit'

Which leads to a question of terminology...

Is 'transit' a synonym  for 'public transport'? or not. If not then  
what is the difference?

If they are the same the can we agree that on the OSM wiki to be  
consistent and always use one of the two phrases (I think they are the  
same and I suggest we use transit personally which seems more  
international than public transport).



Regards,




Peter Miller



___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

Re: [Talk-transit] Subject: Re: Railway route relations

[Richard Mann]

On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 2:38 PM, Frankie Roberto
wrote:

>  Incidentally, many metro systems don't have an advertised timetable as
> such, instead more likely an advertised frequency (eg every 3-5 minutes).
> This is something that could, potentially, be included in OSM data...
>
> Frankie
>

On the tag-what-you-like principle, I've been adding a frequency tag to bus
relations in Oxford, with a notional specification of the number of services
per hour, weekday off-peak (the idea being to render thicker lines for roads
with higher frequencies). Any thoughts/objections?

Richard
___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

Re: [Talk-transit] Subject: Re: Railway route relations

[Frankie Roberto]

On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 1:52 PM, Hillsman, Edward wrote:


> It now appears likely that our research center will receive funding to
> begin developing a multimodal trip planner using OpenStreetMap data.


Firstly, congratulations on the getting this funding (presuming it gets
confirmed) - sounds like a great project.


> We plan to develop an advisory committee for the project, including people
> from US transit agencies and from the OSM community (especially those
> working with transit data in Europe, where most of the OSM transit activity
> seems to be), to advise us on the needs and the possibilities.


And advisory committee for your project, including OSM members, is a good
idea. However it'd be good to keep as much of the discussion about the
mapping and data-import bits of your project on this mailing list as
possible.


> We are drafting the scope of work for the project now. Within the
> constraints of having to deliver certain kinds of results by the end of this
> phase of the project (such as the uploads, and assurance that the desired
> system can indeed be developed on an OSM base), we are trying to include as
> much flexibility as possible for us to work collaboratively with other
> organizations in figuring out what needs to be done and how best to do it.
> My best guess is that we will have confirmation of the project by the end of
> the month, and authorization to begin work by the end of September, although
> these steps can always take longer than expected. Certainly I can
> participate on my own time before then.


Great. It'd be useful to know the scope of your project - I'd recommend
starting with something small and achievable, your suggestion of urban metro
systems is a good one (and I reckon has good coverage in OSM already).

Incidentally, many metro systems don't have an advertised timetable as such,
instead more likely an advertised frequency (eg every 3-5 minutes). This is
something that could, potentially, be included in OSM data...

Frankie

-- 
Frankie Roberto
Experience Designer, Rattle
0114 2706977
http://www.rattlecentral.com
___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

Re: [Talk-transit] New 'Transit' page and proposed Stop Place model

[Peter Miller]

On 6 Aug 2009, at 14:07, Frankie Roberto wrote:

On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 11:40 AM, Peter Miller > wrote:




snip



b) splitting the pages down into smaller components - eg railways,  
bus stops, train services, train stations, etc. Whilst it's good to  
have an overall conceptual model, I think most mappers will be more  
interested in understanding how to tag at a feature level.


Umm.. I  think it is important to have a page for the conceptual  
model and then when we are happy with it, we introduce it into the  
other articles in the context of that transport mode. A description  
of a Stop Place for a drag-lift will be pretty different from that  
of an airport, but I am keen that there is a consistency across  
modes from a programming and tagging perspective.


I think I more-or-less agree. I'm mainly just keen that we keep the  
discussion embedded in the context of actual usage (with plenty of  
real-life examples) rather than being too abstract.


Ok, I completely agree that someone who wants to model a railway  
station should have to look no further that the train page (or railway  
station page) and should gets lots of great examples of how to model  
stations (and nothing about drag-lifts!).


However... I also want there to be a good robust general purpose model  
behind it (what I call the Stop Place) and that also needs a page that  
the developers look at when wondering how to model the world  
efficiently (including drag-lifts and Manchester Airport!).


I think we should also remove the redirect from http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:public_transport 
 and turn that into a standard Key page (with the KeyDescription  
infobox) documenting existing and proposed usage of the key.   
Likewise, it'd be useful to have the relevant tag and key pages for  
all the other tags and keys that are in use or proposed.


It is certainly not appropriate for it to redirect to a user page.  
For now I have redirected it to the Transit article until someone  
fancies adding some content, however  I am not clear if we even  
want a key of that title, should we not standarise on Transit rather  
than public transport. The proposed use of the tag is something I  
would prefer to call stop_place anyway.


I agree that whether we need the key or not is unclear. However,  
since there's at least some usages of it currently, I think it's  
worth documenting what the existing practice is at least (same for  
other tags with significant usage).


fine by me


This reminds me - I think it'd be worth encouraging people here to  
share links to OSM for public transport stops/routes/etc that  
they've mapped, for feedback and discussion. I did this a while back  
on the discussion page for the unified_stoparea proposal (see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/unified_stoparea)


In this spirit, here's what I've mostly done so far:

Oxford Road train station (http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/78910 
)

 - mapped the platforms as areas (railway=platform, role=platform)
 - mapped all the tracks, and the stopping points (role=halt) with  
one of them marked as the 'main' one with railway=station and a name  
tag.

- station building outline (building=yes, no role)
- footbridge and steps (not part of the relation - wasn't sure  
whether they should be?)


Have started to map the tram system in Manchester as two separate  
tracks (http://osm.org/go/evgo1FaS--) though this is complicated by  
the sharing of ways with the highway, and the current part-closure  
of the system for track replacement.


Mapping UK tram system routes as relations (see 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Trams)

Mapping UK 'minor railway' routes as relations (see 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_United_Kingdom_Independent_and_minor_railways)


I suggest we have a list of 'examples of good practice' associated  
with each page. the Tram page should like to good examples of Tram  
modelling and also all the tram related projects and email list around  
the world. Similarly the Train / Railway page would do the same for  
trains. I suggest the Stop Place page might give some examples of a  
few of each sort of Stop Place, including a real monster multi-modal   
interchange (JFK, Heathrow or Schipol).


Regards,



Peter




Would welcome comments on any of those - and would love to see which  
bits of the map other people are working on!



Frankie

--
Frankie Roberto
Experience Designer, Rattle
0114 2706977
http://www.rattlecentral.com

___
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

[Talk-transit] Subject: Re: Railway route relations

[Peter Miller]

On 6 Aug 2009, at 13:52, Hillsman, Edward wrote:

> On 5 Aug 2009 14:59:04 +0100, Peter Miller wrote:
>
>> I totally agree, however we are just setting out on a long journey to
>> capture all the transit data for the world, so lets get the modelling
>> clear now and not be held back by some tag-updating!
>>
>> As we are aware the various transit strands and proposals were
>> initially created bottom-up in a rather random way (which is the
>> nature of these projects). Oxomoa then did a good review of the
>> tagging and identified a number of gaps and inconsistencies with the
>> German community which started to bring it all together. We have also
>> had some useful input from the professional transit community.
>>
>> I suggest that we put significant effort into the wiki and modelling
>> at this point to get all the transit related pages to fit together in
>> a consistent way to our liking and that this will pay big dividends  
>> in
>> the future.
>>
>
>
> I would like to be part of the effort Peter is proposing. It now  
> appears likely that our research center will receive funding to  
> begin developing a multimodal trip planner using OpenStreetMap data.  
> If this does indeed come to pass, then one of the things that we  
> will need to do as part of this work will be to work with the OSM  
> community to ensure that OSM can record the data needed for the  
> transit part of such a system. We plan to develop an advisory  
> committee for the project, including people from US transit agencies  
> and from the OSM community (especially those working with transit  
> data in Europe, where most of the OSM transit activity seems to be),  
> to advise us on the needs and the possibilities. The first phase to  
> be funded would focus on transit data and on tools for uploading  
> transit data from common formats (at least, common in the state of  
> Florida, plus data that some agencies have converted into the Google  
> Transit Feed Specification) into OpenStreetMap, but obviously that  
> requires having a good, clear model of what we are uploading into.  
> And, somehow we will need to work out a way to store and access  
> timetable data which, as far as we can tell, OSM now does not  
> handle. We envision an eventual system that we think also would be  
> able to work with railway timetables in Europe, and to interline  
> between systems, as well as interline between bus, rail, bicycle,  
> and walking modes. Although our initial focus will be on urban  
> public transit systems, we know there is some interest in this among  
> the US intercity bus industry, and I anticipate someone from that  
> industry would be part of the advisory committee as well.
>
> We are drafting the scope of work for the project now. Within the  
> constraints of having to deliver certain kinds of results by the end  
> of this phase of the project (such as the uploads, and assurance  
> that the desired system can indeed be developed on an OSM base), we  
> are trying to include as much flexibility as possible for us to work  
> collaboratively with other organizations in figuring out what needs  
> to be done and how best to do it. My best guess is that we will have  
> confirmation of the project by the end of the month, and  
> authorization to begin work by the end of September, although these  
> steps can always take longer than expected. Certainly I can  
> participate on my own time before then.

Sounds great.

I agree that OSM is not a comfortable place for complete schedules to  
reside. Personally I would advocate having all of the information in  
OSM that is requires to print good public transport maps and keep the  
rest elsewhere.

The OSM data would need to include all the normal highway data, the  
bus stops, railway stations and interchanges etc and then also the  
Routes (or Lines) depending on what we end up calling them. Beyond  
that the timetable store just needs to be able to reference to Route  
(or Line) in OSM and also the Accesses (or bus_stops/ platforms quays  
etc) and the Stop Places (or Stations, Aerodrome etc) in order to  
create the full picture. I don't particularly see the need for what I  
call the Line Variant in OSM, that is probably less trouble to keep  
elsewhere and doesn't really gain anything for most OSM use.

I assume you are aware of these two projects:
http://www.gtfs-data-exchange.com/
http://www.opentransitdata.org/

There is also a good list here:
http://groups.google.com/group/transit-developers/about

Can anyone find the post for the French guy who talked about  
OpenTimetableService or OpenStreetTimetable, something like that? It  
was about 6 months ago I think.


Regards,



Peter Miller



>
> Best regards,
>
> Ed Hillsman
>
> Edward L. Hillsman, Ph.D.
> Senior Research Associate
> Center for Urban Transportation Research
> University of South Florida
> 4202 Fowler Ave., CUT100
> Tampa, FL  33620-5375
> 813-974-2977 (tel)
> 813-974-5168 (fax)
> hills...@cutr.u

Re: [Talk-transit] New 'Transit' page and proposed Stop Place model

[Frankie Roberto]

On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 11:40 AM, Peter Miller wrote:


> That was my feeling as well. The complexity of Trams will be easier to
> explain in its own article. The name of the article matters less than the
> content given that it can be moved. Lets start writing the articles and then
> we can see what feel right and ensure that all the titles are consistent. If
> we have Trams, then we should have Buses and Trains etc. Busways doesn't
> make sense so I suggest Trams is right actually.
>

Cool. I'll start this now.


> You will also notice that I am also plugging a proposal I am
>> developing for a new consistent Stop Place model ( based on Oxoma's
>> proposal) which you can read about here:
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:PeterIto/Stop_Place
>
>
> I'm getting a little confused by having so many separate proposals on so
> many different pages (many of which are user pages). I'd suggest:
>
> a) developing these schemes within the public namespace, so as to encourage
> more collaboration/discussion.
>
>
> I totally agree. I was developing it in my name-space out of politeness
> with the intention of moving it to the main space if the community requested
> it. I suggest we work to get one article that works for us and then we make
> it clear that the other proposals are now redundant (useful and great that
> they were produced, but not a suitable reference for current tagging). I
> will move it later today until I hear any objections. Feel free to edit away
> if you like in the mean time.
>

Great.

b) splitting the pages down into smaller components - eg railways, bus
> stops, train services, train stations, etc. Whilst it's good to have an
> overall conceptual model, I think most mappers will be more interested in
> understanding how to tag at a feature level.
>
>
> Umm.. I  think it is important to have a page for the conceptual model and
> then when we are happy with it, we introduce it into the other articles in
> the context of that transport mode. A description of a Stop Place for a
> drag-lift will be pretty different from that of an airport, but I am keen
> that there is a consistency across modes from a programming and tagging
> perspective.
>
> I think I more-or-less agree. I'm mainly just keen that we keep the
discussion embedded in the context of actual usage (with plenty of real-life
examples) rather than being too abstract.


> I think we should also remove the redirect from
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:public_transport and turn that into
> a standard Key page (with the KeyDescription infobox) documenting existing
> and proposed usage of the key.  Likewise, it'd be useful to have the
> relevant tag and key pages for all the other tags and keys that are in use
> or proposed.
>
>
> It is certainly not appropriate for it to redirect to a user page. For now
> I have redirected it to the Transit article until someone fancies adding
> some content, however  I am not clear if we even want a key of that
> title, should we not standarise on Transit rather than public transport. The
> proposed use of the tag is something I would prefer to call stop_place
> anyway.
>

I agree that whether we need the key or not is unclear. However, since
there's at least some usages of it currently, I think it's worth documenting
what the existing practice is at least (same for other tags with significant
usage).

This reminds me - I think it'd be worth encouraging people here to share
links to OSM for public transport stops/routes/etc that they've mapped, for
feedback and discussion. I did this a while back on the discussion page for
the unified_stoparea proposal (see
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/unified_stoparea)

In this spirit, here's what I've mostly done so far:

Oxford Road train station (
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/78910)
 - mapped the platforms as areas (railway=platform, role=platform)
 - mapped all the tracks, and the stopping points (role=halt) with one of
them marked as the 'main' one with railway=station and a name tag.
- station building outline (building=yes, no role)
- footbridge and steps (not part of the relation - wasn't sure whether they
should be?)

Have started to map the tram system in Manchester as two separate tracks (
http://osm.org/go/evgo1FaS--) though this is complicated by the sharing of
ways with the highway, and the current part-closure of the system for track
replacement.

Mapping UK tram system routes as relations (see
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Trams)

Mapping UK 'minor railway' routes as relations (see
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_United_Kingdom_Independent_and_minor_railways
)

Would welcome comments on any of those - and would love to see which bits of
the map other people are working on!


Frankie

-- 
Frankie Roberto
Experience Designer, Rattle
0114 2706977
http://www.rattlecentral.com
___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@

[Talk-transit] Subject: Re: Railway route relations

[Hillsman, Edward]

On 5 Aug 2009 14:59:04 +0100, Peter Miller wrote:

> I totally agree, however we are just setting out on a long journey to  
> capture all the transit data for the world, so lets get the modelling  
> clear now and not be held back by some tag-updating!
>
> As we are aware the various transit strands and proposals were  
> initially created bottom-up in a rather random way (which is the  
> nature of these projects). Oxomoa then did a good review of the  
> tagging and identified a number of gaps and inconsistencies with the  
> German community which started to bring it all together. We have also  
> had some useful input from the professional transit community.
>
> I suggest that we put significant effort into the wiki and modelling  
> at this point to get all the transit related pages to fit together in  
> a consistent way to our liking and that this will pay big dividends in  
> the future.
>


I would like to be part of the effort Peter is proposing. It now appears likely 
that our research center will receive funding to begin developing a multimodal 
trip planner using OpenStreetMap data. If this does indeed come to pass, then 
one of the things that we will need to do as part of this work will be to work 
with the OSM community to ensure that OSM can record the data needed for the 
transit part of such a system. We plan to develop an advisory committee for the 
project, including people from US transit agencies and from the OSM community 
(especially those working with transit data in Europe, where most of the OSM 
transit activity seems to be), to advise us on the needs and the possibilities. 
The first phase to be funded would focus on transit data and on tools for 
uploading transit data from common formats (at least, common in the state of 
Florida, plus data that some agencies have converted into the Google Transit 
Feed Specification) into OpenStreetMap, but obviously that requires having a 
good, clear model of what we are uploading into. And, somehow we will need to 
work out a way to store and access timetable data which, as far as we can tell, 
OSM now does not handle. We envision an eventual system that we think also 
would be able to work with railway timetables in Europe, and to interline 
between systems, as well as interline between bus, rail, bicycle, and walking 
modes. Although our initial focus will be on urban public transit systems, we 
know there is some interest in this among the US intercity bus industry, and I 
anticipate someone from that industry would be part of the advisory committee 
as well.

We are drafting the scope of work for the project now. Within the constraints 
of having to deliver certain kinds of results by the end of this phase of the 
project (such as the uploads, and assurance that the desired system can indeed 
be developed on an OSM base), we are trying to include as much flexibility as 
possible for us to work collaboratively with other organizations in figuring 
out what needs to be done and how best to do it. My best guess is that we will 
have confirmation of the project by the end of the month, and authorization to 
begin work by the end of September, although these steps can always take longer 
than expected. Certainly I can participate on my own time before then.

Best regards,

Ed Hillsman

Edward L. Hillsman, Ph.D.
Senior Research Associate
Center for Urban Transportation Research
University of South Florida
4202 Fowler Ave., CUT100
Tampa, FL  33620-5375
813-974-2977 (tel)
813-974-5168 (fax)
hills...@cutr.usf.edu   
http://www.cutr.usf.edu



___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

Re: [Talk-transit] New 'Transit' page and proposed Stop Place model

[Peter Miller]

On 6 Aug 2009, at 10:37, Frankie Roberto wrote:



On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 10:17 AM, Peter Miller > wrote:


I have create a new top level page for 'transit' and redirected
'public transport' to that page.

Take a look here and tell me what you think, and do of course make it
better!
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Transit

This is really useful, well done for starting this!

I am also proposing to write basic articles for each of the individual
modes that I have identified (currently the 'main' articles referred
to are mostly to redirects to a tag page which isn't sufficient).

Agreed.

Do you think Tram should be included in Rail or be discussed  
separately?


I'd suggest having a separate page, as the sharing of the ways with  
highways (street running) causes quite a few complications which  
aren't experienced with Rail.


I'm not sure whether "Trams", "Tramways" or "Tram systems" is the  
best name for the page - any thoughts? Whichever we pick, the others  
should be a redirect.


That was my feeling as well. The complexity of Trams will be easier to  
explain in its own article. The name of the article matters less than  
the content given that it can be moved. Lets start writing the  
articles and then we can see what feel right and ensure that all the  
titles are consistent. If we have Trams, then we should have Buses and  
Trains etc. Busways doesn't make sense so I suggest Trams is right  
actually.


You will also notice that I am also plugging a proposal I am
developing for a new consistent Stop Place model ( based on Oxoma's
proposal) which you can read about here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:PeterIto/Stop_Place

I'm getting a little confused by having so many separate proposals  
on so many different pages (many of which are user pages). I'd  
suggest:


a) developing these schemes within the public namespace, so as to  
encourage more collaboration/discussion.


I totally agree. I was developing it in my name-space out of  
politeness with the intention of moving it to the main space if the  
community requested it. I suggest we work to get one article that  
works for us and then we make it clear that the other proposals are  
now redundant (useful and great that they were produced, but not a  
suitable reference for current tagging). I will move it later today  
until I hear any objections. Feel free to edit away if you like in the  
mean time.


b) splitting the pages down into smaller components - eg railways,  
bus stops, train services, train stations, etc. Whilst it's good to  
have an overall conceptual model, I think most mappers will be more  
interested in understanding how to tag at a feature level.


Umm.. I  think it is important to have a page for the conceptual model  
and then when we are happy with it, we introduce it into the other  
articles in the context of that transport mode. A description of a  
Stop Place for a drag-lift will be pretty different from that of an  
airport, but I am keen that there is a consistency across modes from a  
programming and tagging perspective.


I think we should also remove the redirect from http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:public_transport 
 and turn that into a standard Key page (with the KeyDescription  
infobox) documenting existing and proposed usage of the key.   
Likewise, it'd be useful to have the relevant tag and key pages for  
all the other tags and keys that are in use or proposed.


It is certainly not appropriate for it to redirect to a user page. For  
now I have redirected it to the Transit article until someone fancies  
adding some content, however  I am not clear if we even want a key  
of that title, should we not standarise on Transit rather than public  
transport. The proposed use of the tag is something I would prefer to  
call stop_place anyway.



Regards,



Peter




Cheers,

Frankie

--
Frankie Roberto
Experience Designer, Rattle
0114 2706977
http://www.rattlecentral.com

___
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] New 'Transit' page and proposed Stop Place model

[Frankie Roberto]

On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 10:17 AM, Peter Miller wrote:

>
> I have create a new top level page for 'transit' and redirected
> 'public transport' to that page.
>
> Take a look here and tell me what you think, and do of course make it
> better!
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Transit


This is really useful, well done for starting this!


> I am also proposing to write basic articles for each of the individual
> modes that I have identified (currently the 'main' articles referred
> to are mostly to redirects to a tag page which isn't sufficient).


Agreed.


> Do you think Tram should be included in Rail or be discussed separately?


I'd suggest having a separate page, as the sharing of the ways with highways
(street running) causes quite a few complications which aren't experienced
with Rail.

I'm not sure whether "Trams", "Tramways" or "Tram systems" is the best name
for the page - any thoughts? Whichever we pick, the others should be a
redirect.

You will also notice that I am also plugging a proposal I am
> developing for a new consistent Stop Place model ( based on Oxoma's
> proposal) which you can read about here:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:PeterIto/Stop_Place


I'm getting a little confused by having so many separate proposals on so
many different pages (many of which are user pages). I'd suggest:

a) developing these schemes within the public namespace, so as to encourage
more collaboration/discussion.
b) splitting the pages down into smaller components - eg railways, bus
stops, train services, train stations, etc. Whilst it's good to have an
overall conceptual model, I think most mappers will be more interested in
understanding how to tag at a feature level.

I think we should also remove the redirect from
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:public_transport and turn that into a
standard Key page (with the KeyDescription infobox) documenting existing and
proposed usage of the key.  Likewise, it'd be useful to have the relevant
tag and key pages for all the other tags and keys that are in use or
proposed.

Cheers,

Frankie

-- 
Frankie Roberto
Experience Designer, Rattle
0114 2706977
http://www.rattlecentral.com
___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

[Talk-transit] New 'Transit' page and proposed Stop Place model

[Peter Miller]

I have create a new top level page for 'transit' and redirected  
'public transport' to that page.

Take a look here and tell me what you think, and do of course make it  
better!
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Transit

I am also proposing to write basic articles for each of the individual  
modes that I have identified (currently the 'main' articles referred  
to are mostly to redirects to a tag page which isn't sufficient).

Do you think Tram should be included in Rail or be discussed separately?

You will also notice that I am also plugging a proposal I am  
developing for a new consistent Stop Place model ( based on Oxoma's  
proposal) which you can read about here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:PeterIto/Stop_Place



Regards,


Peter


___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

Re: [Talk-transit] NAPTAN Import: Plus-bus Zones

[Roger Slevin]

PlusBus zone boundaries are defined by the stoppoints at the edges of the 
zones.  It should be possible to draw straight lines between each of the 
boundary points to define the polygon of the area they cover (all stops within 
such a polygon are members of that PlusBus zone).  The exceptional treatment of 
NET (tram) in Nottingham is not reflected in the data supplied by PlusBus – 
which is why it doesn’t show up on your mapping of the data (and it doesn’t 
show on the zone diagram on the PlusBus web site either) – I suspect that this 
is because it would be misleading as it would imply that buses can be used in 
the area of served by the tram that is beyond the main area of the PlusBus bus 
zone.

 

The PlusBus zone data comes from PlusBus – so please don’t try to change it.  
If you think it is wrong, then let me know and I will ask PlusBus to review the 
information.

 

Roger

 

From: talk-transit-boun...@openstreetmap.org 
[mailto:talk-transit-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Jerry Clough - OSM
Sent: 05 August 2009 15:31
To: talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [Talk-transit] NAPTAN Import: Plus-bus Zones

 

I've had a quick look at a couple of the PlusBusZones (once inadvertently, as 
the name is rendering 
inappropriately on the Mapnik map): Nottingham and Maidenhead. In both cases 
boundaries are only 
approximate, and appear to be delimited by bus stops rather than routes (e.g., 
service 6 in Maidenhead travels 
along A308, and through the Pinkneys Green area, but AFAIK does not stop). The 
Nottingham one is of particular 
interest to me as the available literature shows an extremely fuzzy map with no 
indications of the precise limits of 
the zone. 

On the routes where I know the limit of the city-wide tickets (CityRider, 
Kangaroo) the edges of the zone are from 
100-200 metres out. I wonder how we can improve this mapping in OSM. For 
instance I could ensure that the 
PlusBus zone polygon shared nodes with the bus stops at the Blue 
 
 Bell, Attenborough, and the 
Sherwin 

  Arms, Bramcote. There is one other issue: the Nottingham Tram (NET) extends 
to Hucknall, 
and I think the relevant tram stops are included in the PlusBus scheme, but 
buses are not. The Kangaroo
 includes the tram and also train services between Hucknall, Attenborough, 
Carlton and Nottingham.

Jerry
SK53

PS. First posting to list, so formatting might be an issue.

 

___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit