Re: [Talk-transit] Naming concepts

[Jo]

2016-10-30 21:27 GMT+01:00 Greg Troxel :

>
> Felix Delattre  writes:
>
> > There are different concepts of routes in OpenStreetMap and GTFS.
> > Sometimes they are not existent or ambiguous.
>
> I am a native speaker of en_US.
>
> > 1. A general public transport service (e.g. No. 38):
> > In OSM: "route_master" in GTFS: "route"
>
> I find route_master to be an odd term, and very much computer jargon vs
> human language.
>

For me that is a line. It has a line number. (which sometimes is not simply
numeric, so it's more of a symbol, but OK)

>
> > 2. A theoretical tour a bus takes, but without schedule information, it
> > represents one each for different direction, but also if one is shorter
> > than the other
> > In OSM: "route"; in GTFS: /not existent/
>
> I would call this a bus route.  Around me, it would have a number, and a
> set of stops.   Then there would be a schedule for the bus route that
> says what time the bus starts from each end and the time for at least
> some of the intermediate stops.   So I find the use of the word route in
> OSM natural.  It also parallels the use of route for a road, which is a
> sequence of ways, but without timing.
>

I would call those itinerary. If OSM had started out with that term, we
wouldn't have the ambiguity today. But route is used for foot/bicycle/horse
and PT itineraries. For PT I resorted to call them route variations, but
they are 'represented' by route relations in OSM.


> > 3. An actual tour a bus takes, on a certain time
> > In OSM" not existen; in GTFS: "trip"
>
> It makes sense to use "trip" in GTFS, and it makes sense that this is
> not in OSM because we don't represent that level of information.
>

Indeed. If we could figure out a way to represent it anyway, I think it
would be a plus. But I won't be holding my breath.


>
> > Route: Is used for different concepts (I guess because of British and
> > American English)
>
> I don't think it's en_GB vs en_US.  I've recently driven in Scotland and
> about 10 years ago in Ireland, and didn't find route to mean something
> significantly differently.  In the US, we use it as part of the name of
> a numbered highway, e.g. "Route 2" is a state highway that goes for
> about 200 miles.  It is signed the whole way and you change road name
> often, but you follow that sequence of roads to get from Boston to the
> New York border, more or less.  Perhaps that isn't used that way in the
> UK, but the notion of "bus route" seemed similar to me.
>
> > Routemaster:  Is a very technical term. I thinks, it's not
> > understandable when looking at it naively (isn't this the bus driver?)
>
> Agreed.  This is a defined term that doesn't mean anything to native
> speakers without reading the definition.
>
> Absent a definition, I wouldn't expect it to mean the driver.   I would
> expect it to mean the official at the transit organization or bus
> company that has the authority to decide what streets that route will go
> on (and can change the set of stops).
>

I'm sure whoever came up with the term wanted to make sure it had route in
the name, as it's grouping a bunch of route relations. For me this is the
'line'. Service line definitely doesn't sound very English to me. (But I'm
not a native speaker either). PT line, maybe?

>
> > It call them 1: Service Line; 2. Route Variant 3: Trip
> >
> > English native speakers, please help: Does this make sense to you? Would
> > you suggest other terms for the concepts to be even more understandable?
>
> Service line and variant don't give me the right idea.  But on really
> thinking I can see where you are coming from.
>
> My basic thoughts are to give the right impression and to align with
> GTFS.
>
> Your #1 I am not 100% sure what it is.  If it's essentially the string
> "Route 38" and doesn't contain information about where, then I would
> call it "route name".
>
> Your #2: I would use route to represent the set of stops and the choice
> of roads, and would expect this to be a pair for the two directions
> (usually; a route could be circular and not bidirectional).  I find it
> funny that GTFS doesn't have this, as the theory of putting databases in
> normal form would lead to representing the set of stops and then having
> sets of times.  However, I can see that this wouldn't quite work.  There
> are train routes near me where some trains skip some of the smaller
> stops.  So here I would expect the "route" to be a set of stops that
> might be made, and the "trip" to sometimes omit some stops.
>
> I do find "trip" to be pretty close to intuitive, although there is
> ambiguity about whether it is a scheduled trip that repeats on multiple
> days, or an actual single trip that happened.   That is not bothersome
> though.
>
> ___
> Talk-transit mailing list
> Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
>
>

Re: [Talk-transit] Naming concepts

[Felix Delattre]

Thanks for your input, Greg!

And how can I make an understandable distinction without using to much
computer jargon between:

1. The overall "route" as you were saying ("route_master" in OSM;), it
has a number (eg. Route 38)

AND (consists of)

2. a subset of route variants ("route" in OSM), one for each direction,
where the bus stops are usually on the other side of the street (so not
the same ones!), maybe there is an additional variant (only runs after
10pm...) that has the same number, but is shorter than the other, or one
that skips a couple of stops, etc.

* The use of "route" alone I would not recommend, because it's to
ambiguous and is used for different concepts.
* "Service Line" for 1. sounds too much German to me :)

Here I made a little table to show the different concepts and terms in
OSM, GTFS and what I came up with:
https://github.com/grote/osm2gtfs/issues/30#issuecomment-257162677

How would a native speaker declare one term each for 1. and one for 2.
that explains intuitively in human language the difference in concept?

Thanks,
Felix



On 30/10/16 21:27, Greg Troxel wrote:
> Felix Delattre  writes:
>
>> There are different concepts of routes in OpenStreetMap and GTFS.
>> Sometimes they are not existent or ambiguous.
> I am a native speaker of en_US.
>
>> 1. A general public transport service (e.g. No. 38):
>> In OSM: "route_master" in GTFS: "route"
> I find route_master to be an odd term, and very much computer jargon vs
> human language.
>
>> 2. A theoretical tour a bus takes, but without schedule information, it
>> represents one each for different direction, but also if one is shorter
>> than the other   
>> In OSM: "route"; in GTFS: /not existent/
> I would call this a bus route.  Around me, it would have a number, and a
> set of stops.   Then there would be a schedule for the bus route that
> says what time the bus starts from each end and the time for at least
> some of the intermediate stops.   So I find the use of the word route in
> OSM natural.  It also parallels the use of route for a road, which is a
> sequence of ways, but without timing.
>
>> 3. An actual tour a bus takes, on a certain time
>> In OSM" not existen; in GTFS: "trip"
> It makes sense to use "trip" in GTFS, and it makes sense that this is
> not in OSM because we don't represent that level of information.
>
>> Route: Is used for different concepts (I guess because of British and
>> American English)
> I don't think it's en_GB vs en_US.  I've recently driven in Scotland and
> about 10 years ago in Ireland, and didn't find route to mean something
> significantly differently.  In the US, we use it as part of the name of
> a numbered highway, e.g. "Route 2" is a state highway that goes for
> about 200 miles.  It is signed the whole way and you change road name
> often, but you follow that sequence of roads to get from Boston to the
> New York border, more or less.  Perhaps that isn't used that way in the
> UK, but the notion of "bus route" seemed similar to me.
>
>> Routemaster:  Is a very technical term. I thinks, it's not
>> understandable when looking at it naively (isn't this the bus driver?)
> Agreed.  This is a defined term that doesn't mean anything to native
> speakers without reading the definition.
>
> Absent a definition, I wouldn't expect it to mean the driver.   I would
> expect it to mean the official at the transit organization or bus
> company that has the authority to decide what streets that route will go
> on (and can change the set of stops).
>
>> It call them 1: Service Line; 2. Route Variant 3: Trip
>>
>> English native speakers, please help: Does this make sense to you? Would
>> you suggest other terms for the concepts to be even more understandable?
> Service line and variant don't give me the right idea.  But on really
> thinking I can see where you are coming from.
>
> My basic thoughts are to give the right impression and to align with
> GTFS.
>
> Your #1 I am not 100% sure what it is.  If it's essentially the string
> "Route 38" and doesn't contain information about where, then I would
> call it "route name".
>
> Your #2: I would use route to represent the set of stops and the choice
> of roads, and would expect this to be a pair for the two directions
> (usually; a route could be circular and not bidirectional).  I find it
> funny that GTFS doesn't have this, as the theory of putting databases in
> normal form would lead to representing the set of stops and then having
> sets of times.  However, I can see that this wouldn't quite work.  There
> are train routes near me where some trains skip some of the smaller
> stops.  So here I would expect the "route" to be a set of stops that
> might be made, and the "trip" to sometimes omit some stops.
>
> I do find "trip" to be pretty close to intuitive, although there is
> ambiguity about whether it is a scheduled trip that repeats on multiple
> days, or an actual single trip that happened.   That is not bothersome
> 

Re: [Talk-transit] Naming concepts

[Greg Troxel]

Felix Delattre  writes:

> There are different concepts of routes in OpenStreetMap and GTFS.
> Sometimes they are not existent or ambiguous.

I am a native speaker of en_US.

> 1. A general public transport service (e.g. No. 38):
> In OSM: "route_master" in GTFS: "route"

I find route_master to be an odd term, and very much computer jargon vs
human language.

> 2. A theoretical tour a bus takes, but without schedule information, it
> represents one each for different direction, but also if one is shorter
> than the other   
> In OSM: "route"; in GTFS: /not existent/

I would call this a bus route.  Around me, it would have a number, and a
set of stops.   Then there would be a schedule for the bus route that
says what time the bus starts from each end and the time for at least
some of the intermediate stops.   So I find the use of the word route in
OSM natural.  It also parallels the use of route for a road, which is a
sequence of ways, but without timing.

> 3. An actual tour a bus takes, on a certain time
> In OSM" not existen; in GTFS: "trip"

It makes sense to use "trip" in GTFS, and it makes sense that this is
not in OSM because we don't represent that level of information.

> Route: Is used for different concepts (I guess because of British and
> American English)

I don't think it's en_GB vs en_US.  I've recently driven in Scotland and
about 10 years ago in Ireland, and didn't find route to mean something
significantly differently.  In the US, we use it as part of the name of
a numbered highway, e.g. "Route 2" is a state highway that goes for
about 200 miles.  It is signed the whole way and you change road name
often, but you follow that sequence of roads to get from Boston to the
New York border, more or less.  Perhaps that isn't used that way in the
UK, but the notion of "bus route" seemed similar to me.

> Routemaster:  Is a very technical term. I thinks, it's not
> understandable when looking at it naively (isn't this the bus driver?)

Agreed.  This is a defined term that doesn't mean anything to native
speakers without reading the definition.

Absent a definition, I wouldn't expect it to mean the driver.   I would
expect it to mean the official at the transit organization or bus
company that has the authority to decide what streets that route will go
on (and can change the set of stops).

> It call them 1: Service Line; 2. Route Variant 3: Trip
>
> English native speakers, please help: Does this make sense to you? Would
> you suggest other terms for the concepts to be even more understandable?

Service line and variant don't give me the right idea.  But on really
thinking I can see where you are coming from.

My basic thoughts are to give the right impression and to align with
GTFS.

Your #1 I am not 100% sure what it is.  If it's essentially the string
"Route 38" and doesn't contain information about where, then I would
call it "route name".

Your #2: I would use route to represent the set of stops and the choice
of roads, and would expect this to be a pair for the two directions
(usually; a route could be circular and not bidirectional).  I find it
funny that GTFS doesn't have this, as the theory of putting databases in
normal form would lead to representing the set of stops and then having
sets of times.  However, I can see that this wouldn't quite work.  There
are train routes near me where some trains skip some of the smaller
stops.  So here I would expect the "route" to be a set of stops that
might be made, and the "trip" to sometimes omit some stops.

I do find "trip" to be pretty close to intuitive, although there is
ambiguity about whether it is a scheduled trip that repeats on multiple
days, or an actual single trip that happened.   That is not bothersome
though.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

[Talk-transit] Naming concepts

[Felix Delattre]

Hello,

I'm currently coding on a osm2gtfs script
(https://github.com/grote/osm2gtfs) to make it work in a more generic
way for more than one city (for which it was created for initially). And
I like my code to be readable and understandable intuitively. Because we
are all no native English speakers (two Germans and one Costa Rican) I'd
like to ask for some feedback on naming issues:

There are different concepts of routes in OpenStreetMap and GTFS.
Sometimes they are not existent or ambiguous.

1. A general public transport service (e.g. No. 38):
In OSM: "route_master" in GTFS: "route"

2. A theoretical tour a bus takes, but without schedule information, it
represents one each for different direction, but also if one is shorter
than the other   
In OSM: "route"; in GTFS: /not existent/

3. An actual tour a bus takes, on a certain time
In OSM" not existen; in GTFS: "trip"

Route: Is used for different concepts (I guess because of British and
American English)
Routemaster:  Is a very technical term. I thinks, it's not
understandable when looking at it naively (isn't this the bus driver?)

It call them 1: Service Line; 2. Route Variant 3: Trip

English native speakers, please help: Does this make sense to you? Would
you suggest other terms for the concepts to be even more understandable?

Thank you very much!

Regards,
Felix




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