Re: [Talk-transit] Naming concepts
On 2016-10-31 17:59, Greg Troxel wrote: Stephen Sprunk writes: I should point out that "bus lines", "cruise lines", "air lines", etc. are plural when talking about one company (e.g. American Airlines) because they operate a collection of individual lines between specific locations, such as New York-Los Angeles. But one would say 'Holland America is a cruise line". In formal writing, I'd probably correct that to "Holland America is a cruise line operator", but I'm not pedantic enough to do that in informal writing, much less speech. So it's messy. True, but English is a messy language; things have a habit of morphing into forms that are de jure incorrect, yet so many people repeat them that they become de facto correct over time. We joke about how some non-natives speak English "better" than us, yet correctness just doesn't "sound right"; one of the hardest things to learn is speaking incorrectly like we natives do! For instance, "than us" above should really be "than we [do]", but if you actually say "than we" without the "do", native speakers will probably think you're pretentious--or a non-native speaker. I'm still not 100% following. In the wiki table, is concept number 1 just a name for the collection of route variants, and basically the name that the bus company (agency/whatever) uses? I would call that "bus_route_name" then, with a name, and perhaps bus_route_ref for just the numberish part, along with bus_route_operator. This is making it like highway ref tags. Incidentally, this drives me nuts about transit. If the agencies actually published the names that way (e.g. variants 42A and 42B, perhaps with the shared portions just labeled 42), it'd make their services a lot easier to use; today, it's very easy to accidentally get on a "42 to Foo Street" when you actually needed a "42 to Bar Avenue". When "via"s get involved, it's even worse. Who came up with this nonsense and thought it was a good idea? I agree, and the for the most part the agency near me (MBTA, www.mbta.com) is good about this, having two route numbers for the two ways the bus can run. But then they publish a "74/75" schedule that shows information about 74 and 75 since they are mostly the same and departures are interleaved. I don't think there's any way to totally win here. That makes sense since they're obviously related, at least if the shared segment is significant, yet it recognizes a clear difference between the two services outside the shared segment. Seems like a win to me. Note that I'm comparing that to using a single line label, which makes a schedule like this much harder to understand that it should be: http://dart.org/schedules/w019no.htm http://dart.org/schedules/w019so.htm It's one thing for some trips (particularly the first and last few of the service day) to not run the entire length of a line, but when you branch at one or both ends, i.e. serving mutually exclusive subsets of stops, calling it a single line seems rather questionable. S -- Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do." K5SSS --Isaac Asimov ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Naming concepts
On 2016-11-01 06:12, Felix Delattre wrote: On 31/10/16 19:05, Stephen Sprunk wrote: For those not familiar with Transmodel, can you either explain what its terms are for the concepts in question and/or point us to resources that do? I found this PDF on transmodel's definitions and concepts useful: http://transmodel-cen.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/TRM6_Glossary-Part-123.pdf That'll take a while to digest fully, but it appears your excerpt covers the current topic succinctly. Thanks! * LINE: A group of ROUTEs which is generally known to the public by a similar name or number * ROUTE: An ordered list of located POINTs defining one single path through the road (or rail) network. A ROUTE may pass through the same POINT more than once. I take it as a good sign that those are roughly the same terms/ideas that we collectively came up with off the cuff. It's also good that they're ones a layman can fairly easily understand. Unfortunately, both end here. * JOURNEY PATTERN: An ordered list of SCHEDULED STOP POINTs and TIMING POINTs on a single ROUTE, describing the pattern of working for public transport vehicles.A JOURNEY PATTERN may pass through the same POINT more than once. The first point of a JOURNEY PATTERN is the origin. The last point is the destination. OSM: This seems to be (very) roughly equivalent to the set of stop_positions in a given route. Without an additional formal level of abstraction, journey patterns along the same route have to duplicate the correct subset of ways in addition to the stop_positions. I recognized that as frustrating when I did the rail lines here but I couldn't put my finger on exactly why at the time. GTFS: This sounds like a shape, but it's optional and most agencies don't seem to bother, which means you have to compare the full list of stops to determine if two trips are using the same pattern. But lazy agencies would probably give up entirely if they had to create/provide shapes, so I get it. * VEHICE JOURNEY: The planned movement of a public transport vehicle on a DAY TYPE from the start point to the end point of a JOURNEY PATTERN on a specified ROUTE. OSM: If schedule information is out of scope, I don't see a need/use for an equivalent to this. (Not an argument either way, just a consequence.) GTFS: This sounds like a trip. S -- Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do." K5SSS --Isaac Asimov ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Naming concepts
Thank you all for this great input! On 01/11/16 00:02, Greg Troxel wrote: > "Roger Slevin" writes: >> I have watched this debate over the years - and I keep coming back to >> what I think is a key question for the OSM community ... if there is >> an existing robust standard for public transport information, then is >> it really worth trying to add to OSM a different standard (or set of >> terms) for that information? If so, can you afford to be less precise >> in your terminology than that defined over many, many years of work in >> Transmodel? The same issue was faced by GTFS many years ago and, for >> better or worse, the decision was taken by the GTFS community to go >> ahead with a separate standard. But whilst GTFS is not underpinned by >> the Transmodel standard, many aspects of it have taken the Transmodel >> reference data model into account. GTFS is not as comprehensive, I >> suggest, as Transmodel - and it is an implementation standard and not >> a reference data model. > I agree in general - OSM has too much making up of schemas rather than > studying the schemas which have been developed in the various > professional communities. > > Overall, though, I am wondering if this discussion is about identifiers > to use in source code, or is about some user-facing aspect of the > program or something else. I would advocate picking a well-established > set of terms (transmodel seems like a good fit, even though I know > zero about it) and just use that. The key is defining the terms so > that people can understand them. Personally, the initial question was about the use in code, but making also the code as readable as possible. Generally I think the whole discussion is good and interesting even without looking too much on my specific use case The transmodel standard is good information and even it introduces another naming convention (besides OSM and GTFS) it seems to be the best thought-threw definition (with some awkward terms however :) ) With all this input I will make my head around and see how I name my classes for the osm2gtfs script: https://github.com/grote/osm2gtfs/issues/30#issuecomment-257162677 Thank you! On 31/10/16 19:05, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > For those not familiar with Transmodel, can you either explain what > its terms are for the concepts in question and/or point us to > resources that do? I found this PDF on transmodel's definitions and concepts useful: http://transmodel-cen.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/TRM6_Glossary-Part-123.pdf * LINE: A group of ROUTEs which is generally known to the public by a similar name or number * ROUTE: An ordered list of located POINTs defining one single path through the road (or rail) network. A ROUTE may pass through the same POINT more than once. * JOURNEY PATTERN: An ordered list of SCHEDULED STOP POINTs and TIMING POINTs on a single ROUTE, describing the pattern of working for public transport vehicles.A JOURNEY PATTERN may pass through the same POINT more than once. The first point of a JOURNEY PATTERN is the origin. The last point is the destination. * VEHICE JOURNEY: The planned movement of a public transport vehicle on a DAY TYPE from the start point to the end point of a JOURNEY PATTERN on a specified ROUTE. ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Naming concepts
"Roger Slevin" writes: > I have watched this debate over the years - and I keep coming back to > what I think is a key question for the OSM community ... if there is > an existing robust standard for public transport information, then is > it really worth trying to add to OSM a different standard (or set of > terms) for that information? If so, can you afford to be less precise > in your terminology than that defined over many, many years of work in > Transmodel? The same issue was faced by GTFS many years ago and, for > better or worse, the decision was taken by the GTFS community to go > ahead with a separate standard. But whilst GTFS is not underpinned by > the Transmodel standard, many aspects of it have taken the Transmodel > reference data model into account. GTFS is not as comprehensive, I > suggest, as Transmodel - and it is an implementation standard and not > a reference data model. I agree in general - OSM has too much making up of schemas rather than studying the schemas which have been developed in the various professional communities. Overall, though, I am wondering if this discussion is about identifiers to use in source code, or is about some user-facing aspect of the program or something else. I would advocate picking a well-established set of terms (transmodel seems like a good fit, even though I know zero about it) and just use that. The key is defining the terms so that people can understand them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Naming concepts
Stephen Sprunk writes: > I should point out that "bus lines", "cruise lines", "air lines", > etc. are plural when talking about one company (e.g. American > Airlines) because they operate a collection of individual lines > between specific locations, such as New York-Los Angeles. But one would say 'Holland America is a cruise line". So it's messy. >> I'm still not 100% following. In the wiki table, is concept number 1 >> just a name for the collection of route variants, and basically the >> name that the bus company (agency/whatever) uses? I would call that >> "bus_route_name" then, with a name, and perhaps bus_route_ref for >> just the numberish part, along with bus_route_operator. This is >> making it like highway ref tags. > > Incidentally, this drives me nuts about transit. If the agencies > actually published the names that way (e.g. variants 42A and 42B, > perhaps with the shared portions just labeled 42), it'd make their > services a lot easier to use; today, it's very easy to accidentally > get on a "42 to Foo Street" when you actually needed a "42 to Bar > Avenue". When "via"s get involved, it's even worse. Who came up with > this nonsense and thought it was a good idea? I agree, and the for the most part the agency near me (MBTA, www.mbta.com) is good about this, having two route numbers for the two ways the bus can run. But then they publish a "74/75" schedule that shows information about 74 and 75 since they are mostly the same and departures are interleaved. I don't think there's any way to totally win here. signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Naming concepts
On 2016-10-31 11:46, Roger Slevin wrote: The term "LINE" is as awkward for me as it is for everyone else ... because it is describing something which in everyday language has many approximate synonyms. But in the comprehensive European Transmodel (public transport reference data model) standard LINE is defined precisely to give an unambiguous meaning - and that then leaves ROUTE and other terms to have their own unambiguous meanings. For those not familiar with Transmodel, can you either explain what its terms are for the concepts in question and/or point us to resources that do? S -- Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do." K5SSS --Isaac Asimov ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Naming concepts
Perhaps I can add a comment to this debate, as a native English speaker? The term "LINE" is as awkward for me as it is for everyone else ... because it is describing something which in everyday language has many approximate synonyms. But in the comprehensive European Transmodel (public transport reference data model) standard LINE is defined precisely to give an unambiguous meaning - and that then leaves ROUTE and other terms to have their own unambiguous meanings. To me these are classic examples of why a carefully constructed data model dealing with something as "everyday" as public transport is almost inevitably going to use words which are not necessarily the same as those which might be used colloquially in a very imprecisely way. The terms in a reference data model ensure that everyone working with data can be sure that they are talking about the same abstract concepts when they use a particular defined term and that saves a lot of time debating such terms and concepts. I have watched this debate over the years - and I keep coming back to what I think is a key question for the OSM community ... if there is an existing robust standard for public transport information, then is it really worth trying to add to OSM a different standard (or set of terms) for that information? If so, can you afford to be less precise in your terminology than that defined over many, many years of work in Transmodel? The same issue was faced by GTFS many years ago and, for better or worse, the decision was taken by the GTFS community to go ahead with a separate standard. But whilst GTFS is not underpinned by the Transmodel standard, many aspects of it have taken the Transmodel reference data model into account. GTFS is not as comprehensive, I suggest, as Transmodel - and it is an implementation standard and not a reference data model. There is no easy approach to these discussions - and as the world of public transport information becomes ever more complex and comprehensive, so the challenges of maintain integrity in the handling of the available information get ever bigger - and the need for robust data models becomes every stronger. Roger -Original Message- From: Stephen Sprunk [mailto:step...@sprunk.org] Sent: 31 October 2016 16:16 To: Public transport/transit/shared taxi related topics Subject: Re: [Talk-transit] Naming concepts On 2016-10-31 07:54, Greg Troxel wrote: > Felix Delattre writes: >> I also like them. Thanks, Jo! >> But isn't "line" an European wording? Would an English native speaker >> intuitively understand the concepts of "line" and "itinerary"? I >> always > > For me (en_US), I find it awkward. I (en_US) find it a bit awkward, but mainly because I think the general public uses "route" to refer to both, and which they're referring to (if they even make that distinction) can be inferred from context--something a computer can't do. >> thought a "line" is more likely to understand as a network or public >> transport operator for US boys and girls - but (hopefully) I might be >> wrong. > > "line" often refers to a company that operates routes, like a "cruise > line". Like many English words, the meaning of "line" depends on context, to the point it's both clearly right and clearly wrong to different people. I should point out that "bus lines", "cruise lines", "air lines", etc. are plural when talking about one company (e.g. American Airlines) because they operate a collection of individual lines between specific locations, such as New York-Los Angeles. It is illogical to think of a line as going in only one direction, whereas a route does have a direction, so logically a line must be a collection of two (or more?) routes, right? Overall, I think this is the best one can come up with for this concept. Unfortunately, "line" alone is too generic to use in OSM, which is probably where "route_master" came from. > itinerary is usually a set of places that a person or group is going > to, often including cities/hotels on multi-day trips and sometimes > including > flights. If someone said "please send me your itinerary for your trip > to France" they would expect a list of "this night we are at this > hotel, address and phone, and this night". Exactly; one speaks of the itinerary for a specific trip. > I'm still not 100% following. In the wiki table, is concept number 1 > just a name for the collection of route variants, and basically the > name that the bus company (agency/whatever) uses? I would call that > "bus_route_name" then, with a name, and perhaps bus_route_ref for just > the numberish part, along with bus_route_o
Re: [Talk-transit] Naming concepts
On 2016-10-31 07:54, Greg Troxel wrote: Felix Delattre writes: I also like them. Thanks, Jo! But isn't "line" an European wording? Would an English native speaker intuitively understand the concepts of "line" and "itinerary"? I always For me (en_US), I find it awkward. I (en_US) find it a bit awkward, but mainly because I think the general public uses "route" to refer to both, and which they're referring to (if they even make that distinction) can be inferred from context--something a computer can't do. thought a "line" is more likely to understand as a network or public transport operator for US boys and girls - but (hopefully) I might be wrong. "line" often refers to a company that operates routes, like a "cruise line". Like many English words, the meaning of "line" depends on context, to the point it's both clearly right and clearly wrong to different people. I should point out that "bus lines", "cruise lines", "air lines", etc. are plural when talking about one company (e.g. American Airlines) because they operate a collection of individual lines between specific locations, such as New York-Los Angeles. It is illogical to think of a line as going in only one direction, whereas a route does have a direction, so logically a line must be a collection of two (or more?) routes, right? Overall, I think this is the best one can come up with for this concept. Unfortunately, "line" alone is too generic to use in OSM, which is probably where "route_master" came from. itinerary is usually a set of places that a person or group is going to, often including cities/hotels on multi-day trips and sometimes including flights. If someone said "please send me your itinerary for your trip to France" they would expect a list of "this night we are at this hotel, address and phone, and this night". Exactly; one speaks of the itinerary for a specific trip. I'm still not 100% following. In the wiki table, is concept number 1 just a name for the collection of route variants, and basically the name that the bus company (agency/whatever) uses? I would call that "bus_route_name" then, with a name, and perhaps bus_route_ref for just the numberish part, along with bus_route_operator. This is making it like highway ref tags. Incidentally, this drives me nuts about transit. If the agencies actually published the names that way (e.g. variants 42A and 42B, perhaps with the shared portions just labeled 42), it'd make their services a lot easier to use; today, it's very easy to accidentally get on a "42 to Foo Street" when you actually needed a "42 to Bar Avenue". When "via"s get involved, it's even worse. Who came up with this nonsense and thought it was a good idea? I think "route_variant" is a good name, in that it captures the sense that all of the route_variants of a route are similar somewhow but not quite. The only awkwardness is that sometimes there will be only one route_variant in a route. If one is trying to avoid the word "route" for this, but not a specific trip, then the only term coming to mind is "service pattern", but a layman would need a bit to work out exactly what you're referring to. I doubt many have ever thought of the formal distinctions that we need. Overall, though, I would try very hard to just reuse the GTFS terms for the GTFS concepts, and to put a comment in the source or docs clarifying what they mean. I think the benefit of clearer terms will be outweighed by having more to learn. Finally, I think osm2gtfs is going to want to use information that isn't in OSM. I'm not sure what the plan is, or if one can produce a GTFS version that is just missing the fine-grained schedule information, and if that's what you want to do. Indeed, if we can get more information on the desired use, we may be able to provide more specific guidance. But I've been thinking more in terms of how to get GTFS data into OSM and/or match the two together, rather than OSM data into GTFS. Since GTFS already has ID numbers for each entity and OSM is free tagging, the former are fairly straightforward, whereas the (current) policy of not putting schedule data in OSM makes that latter seemingly impossible. S -- Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do." K5SSS --Isaac Asimov ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Naming concepts
On 31/10/16 13:54, Greg Troxel wrote: > Felix Delattre writes: >> I also like them. Thanks, Jo! >> But isn't "line" an European wording? Would an English native speaker >> intuitively understand the concepts of "line" and "itinerary"? I always > For me (en_US), I find it awkward. The same thing told me a friend (en_US) I asked. > I'm still not 100% following. In the wiki table, is concept number 1 > just a name for the collection of route variants, and basically the name > that the bus company (agency/whatever) uses? I would call that > "bus_route_name" then, with a name, and perhaps bus_route_ref for just > the numberish part, along with bus_route_operator. This is making it > like highway ref tags. Yes, that's what it is a collection of variants. I think in proper English the overall collection of route variations is just called a "route". Unfortunately OpenStreetMap's tagging schema uses "route" for route variations and "route_master" for what should be called a route :/ That is also the reason why I want to avoid the use of the pure word "route" - to avoid confusion. I like the idea of using bus_route_name, as this is most understandable in human language, but can be misleading as well - somtimes variations have different names (Bus route 37A, Bus route 37B). Maybe it's a good option to use: 1. RouteContainer (which can have then one to several) 2. RouteVariation(s) This is also computer jargon, but better understandable than route_master, I guess? > I think "route_variant" is a good name, in that it captures the sense > that all of the route_variants of a route are similar somewhow but not > quite. The only awkwardness is that sometimes there will be only one > route_variant in a route. > > trip and itinerary are both confusing in that there is ambiguity between > a specific one-time departure (e.g., 0800 from Harvard Square on 31 > October 2016) and a planned recurring departure (0800 from Harvard > Square on all weekdays). I would use the terms > > recurring_trip > > specific_trip > > but don't really like the second one. > > > Overall, though, I would try very hard to just reuse the GTFS terms for > the GTFS concepts, and to put a comment in the source or docs clarifying > what they mean. I think the benefit of clearer terms will be outweighed > by having more to learn. Yes, that's true. Use route for route (as GTFS does) and put a comment in there, every time OSM routes are used, that they are actually representing route variations... > Finally, I think osm2gtfs is going to want to use information that isn't > in OSM. I'm not sure what the plan is, or if one can produce a GTFS > version that is just missing the fine-grained schedule information, and > if that's what you want to do. It combines OSM data with other sources of schedule/time information to create a GTFS format out of it. ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Naming concepts
Felix Delattre writes: > I also like them. Thanks, Jo! > But isn't "line" an European wording? Would an English native speaker > intuitively understand the concepts of "line" and "itinerary"? I always For me (en_US), I find it awkward. > thought a "line" is more likely to understand as a network or public > transport operator for US boys and girls - but (hopefully) I might be wrong. "line" often refers to a company that operates routes, like a "cruise line". itinerary is usually a set of places that a person or group is going to, often including cities/hotels on multi-day trips and sometimes including flights. If someone said "please send me your itinerary for your trip to France" they would expect a list of "this night we are at this hotel, address and phone, and this night". I'm still not 100% following. In the wiki table, is concept number 1 just a name for the collection of route variants, and basically the name that the bus company (agency/whatever) uses? I would call that "bus_route_name" then, with a name, and perhaps bus_route_ref for just the numberish part, along with bus_route_operator. This is making it like highway ref tags. I think "route_variant" is a good name, in that it captures the sense that all of the route_variants of a route are similar somewhow but not quite. The only awkwardness is that sometimes there will be only one route_variant in a route. trip and itinerary are both confusing in that there is ambiguity between a specific one-time departure (e.g., 0800 from Harvard Square on 31 October 2016) and a planned recurring departure (0800 from Harvard Square on all weekdays). I would use the terms recurring_trip specific_trip but don't really like the second one. Overall, though, I would try very hard to just reuse the GTFS terms for the GTFS concepts, and to put a comment in the source or docs clarifying what they mean. I think the benefit of clearer terms will be outweighed by having more to learn. Finally, I think osm2gtfs is going to want to use information that isn't in OSM. I'm not sure what the plan is, or if one can produce a GTFS version that is just missing the fine-grained schedule information, and if that's what you want to do. signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Naming concepts
signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Naming concepts
On 31/10/16 10:05, Roland Olbricht wrote: 1. A general public transport service (e.g. No. 38): In OSM: "route_master" in GTFS: "route" >> >> 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 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. >> > > I fully support that wording. I also like them. Thanks, Jo! But isn't "line" an European wording? Would an English native speaker intuitively understand the concepts of "line" and "itinerary"? I always thought a "line" is more likely to understand as a network or public transport operator for US boys and girls - but (hopefully) I might be wrong. ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Naming concepts
Hi all, 1. A general public transport service (e.g. No. 38): In OSM: "route_master" in GTFS: "route" 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 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" [..] 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. I fully support that wording. But I would like to point you to another problem that has kept and is keeping OSM PT painful: There are two very distinct underlying data models in use by the transit agencies. The metropolitan (line based) model looks like subway lines usually look: The full schedule is essentially modeled by the itineraries plus the list of departure times per itinerary. This works because all trips have the same set of stops and approximately the same travel time. If there are many trips per itinerary then there might not even be a fixed list of departure times but just a defined departure frequency, like 05h48 06h00 then every 2 to 5 Minutes 19h00 19h13 19h28 ... That is all you need to know. Frequencies depend on the hardware (signalling limits, number of vehicles for the line). Thus they usually persist for years or decades. First and last times depends on the habits of the local users and therefore also persist usually for years. It would make sense to have that information in OSM. The rural model, also often used for long distance service, looks like school buses: Different trips may vary wildly, and times fluctuate quite often. A useful data model would have to capture not only an itinerary for each single trip, but also the operating dates. This is out of scope for OSM, because it is ephemeral. Nonetheless, trips have a line number that is displayed. Operations based on the metropolitan model tend to be attractive for passengers from the general public. Operations based on the rural model tend to be cheap for the agency. This is why it is a political issue to tell a local community that their public transport network is too rural for OSM. Long story cut short: I would suggest that you keep a structure for unassigned trips in your intermediate data structure, even if that is not filled from OSM. If you want to fight for timetable data according to the metropolitan model in OSM, then you have my support. But a lot of people have tried that years ago and each eventually resigned. There is quite a vocal part of the community concerned with more rural-style services, and they have defeated so far all apporaches to metropolitan style information to OSM. Best regards, Roland -- Dr. Roland Olbricht MENTZ GmbH, Am Mittelhafen 10, 48155 Münster T: +49 (0)251 7 03 30-232, F: +49 (0)251 7 03 30-300 E: olbri...@mentz.net, www.mentz.net Sitz der Gesellschaft: Grillparzerstraße 18, 81675 München Geschäftsführer Dr.-Ing. Hans-J. Mentz Amtsgericht München, HRB 91898 ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Naming concepts
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 > > ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Naming concepts
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
> though.
_
Re: [Talk-transit] Naming concepts
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
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
