Re: [Talk-us] Updating tagging of public transport
On Feb 5, 2015 5:30 AM, Mike N nice...@att.net wrote: On 2/4/2015 11:48 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: Generally, it is not feasible to use OSM as a dataset backing an official GTFS feed. This is because the probability of the GTFS dataset being uploaded to Google and thereby violating the license if the street centerlines or stops were derived from OSM. Google isn't the only consumer of GTFS, and it is possible to provide attribution in a GTFS feed. It's mostly a matter of probability of being uploaded to Google: if a transportation authority publishes a trip planner that consumes GTFS, there will be a constant stream of requests to have the capability added to Google Maps. The original implementer should know about OSM licensing issues, but if he leaves, the co-workers who take his place will have no chance of knowing about or remembering license terms. The open GTFS format will end up in Google despite any embedded attribution or notes. In this situation, I'm not sure this isn't difference with significant distinction, since if Tulsa Transit, a government entity, were to clean up their own data to reflect the ground truth they were directly and solely responsible for creating, it would come out to the same result. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Updating tagging of public transport
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Mike N nice...@att.net wrote: Generally, it is not feasible to use OSM as a dataset backing an official GTFS feed. This is because the probability of the GTFS dataset being uploaded to Google and thereby violating the license if the street centerlines or stops were derived from OSM. Google isn't the only consumer of GTFS, and it is possible to provide attribution in a GTFS feed. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Updating tagging of public transport
On 2/3/2015 3:31 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: Is the new style backwards compatible with the old style? The new Public Transport style is backward compatible and offers a more uniform tagging style with some additional capabilities (in my opinion). Especially in regards to potentially having OSM as being the dataset for the official GTFS feed in an area where the official data presently sucks, it'd be a travesty if the new style makes going to and from GTFS /more/ difficult for marginal (and primarily German micromapping) gains. Generally, it is not feasible to use OSM as a dataset backing an official GTFS feed. This is because the probability of the GTFS dataset being uploaded to Google and thereby violating the license if the street centerlines or stops were derived from OSM. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Updating tagging of public transport
Is the new style backwards compatible with the old style? Especially in regards to potentially having OSM as being the dataset for the official GTFS feed in an area where the official data presently sucks, it'd be a travesty if the new style makes going to and from GTFS *more* difficult for marginal (and primarily German micromapping) gains. On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Saikrishna Arcot saiarcot...@gmail.com wrote: Part of the problem between the tagging schemes and the rendering is that it's a chicken-and-egg problem; a new tagging scheme is created, but rendering support isn't there yet (partly because it's a somewhat complex structure), so people might not use that scheme. However, if there were many instances of using the newer scheme, then it would be justified for the renderers to add support for that scheme. (On the rendering topic, though, I can confirm that OSM's transport map does support the newer scheme, as does Öpnvkarte, OpenStreetBrowser, OsmAnd, so it's not lacking.) A slightly bigger issue I see is that there are two formats for tagging transportation routes, which will not only require data consumers to code for both formats, but will also make it harder to link a bus route tagged using the newer format be connected to another bus route using the older format. I feel that this should be resolved quickly. On Saturday, November 29, 2014 02:02:01 stevea wrote: it is not clear if the new way is actually better, at least the current data stats show that mappers still prefer the old method, at least for bus stops, as it is simpler (you need just one tag highway=bus_stop instead of two: public_transport=platform and bus=yes, for the same information content), and the new style cannot be rendered on the main map, because of the lack of the bus-key (the rendering db only knows that there is some kind of stop, but it cannot determine if it is a tram stop, a bus stop or whatelse). I wouldn't re-tag, ie. won't remove tags, but you can add the public_transport=* tags if you want to support also this scheme. Is what I hear Martin saying here is that tagging with an old style because it renders AND tagging with a newer syntax that doesn't is OK? (As in, doing two things at once, even if they achieve different, but good and worthy goals, is right?) If so, part of what it says is that syntax is rather distantly connected to rendering. Read that again, as I think it is important. It is about what might be called OSM's transmission. Not everybody understands the full process of how changes in syntax (e.g. voted upon tagging) turn into what we see mapped. There are human consensus processes there, there are coding processes there (including bug fixes, actual writing of render code..) there is quite much more than just that there. It is a complicated moving set of parts. It is let's map bus routes, OK, let's describe better syntax for bus routes, OK (but we don't render that today). Now what? That's a real hit the brakes and think about how to do it better, so discuss moment. As we recognize distance between what people want to see represented in the map (how they tag) with the syntax of doing so (actual tags that get into OSM's data) can we better discuss this? We can and should, I say. Deep, I know. My point is that a person wanting to understand how to influence this is very much helped by understanding it (as much of it as possible, as much of it as we can describe as what we intend...) in the first place. How might one see such moving parts of OSM and how they a) work today? and b) work better in the future as we intend them? It goes deeper than public transport tagging, but that is a good example through this transmission. Look, I know: some of us work on our transmission, and they must. A lot more of us -- and there are many -- are only quite vaguely aware of how it works, or how we might best induce positive change into its workings. We can do better. Good discussion so far, but it seems we are only scratching this surface. SteveA California -- Saikrishna Arcot ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Updating tagging of public transport
Part of the problem between the tagging schemes and the rendering is that it's a chicken-and-egg problem; a new tagging scheme is created, but rendering support isn't there yet (partly because it's a somewhat complex structure), so people might not use that scheme. However, if there were many instances of using the newer scheme, then it would be justified for the renderers to add support for that scheme. (On the rendering topic, though, I can confirm that OSM's transport map does support the newer scheme, as does Öpnvkarte, OpenStreetBrowser, OsmAnd, so it's not lacking.) A slightly bigger issue I see is that there are two formats for tagging transportation routes, which will not only require data consumers to code for both formats, but will also make it harder to link a bus route tagged using the newer format be connected to another bus route using the older format. I feel that this should be resolved quickly. On Saturday, November 29, 2014 02:02:01 stevea wrote: it is not clear if the new way is actually better, at least the current data stats show that mappers still prefer the old method, at least for bus stops, as it is simpler (you need just one tag highway=bus_stop instead of two: public_transport=platform and bus=yes, for the same information content), and the new style cannot be rendered on the main map, because of the lack of the bus-key (the rendering db only knows that there is some kind of stop, but it cannot determine if it is a tram stop, a bus stop or whatelse). I wouldn't re-tag, ie. won't remove tags, but you can add the public_transport=* tags if you want to support also this scheme. Is what I hear Martin saying here is that tagging with an old style because it renders AND tagging with a newer syntax that doesn't is OK? (As in, doing two things at once, even if they achieve different, but good and worthy goals, is right?) If so, part of what it says is that syntax is rather distantly connected to rendering. Read that again, as I think it is important. It is about what might be called OSM's transmission. Not everybody understands the full process of how changes in syntax (e.g. voted upon tagging) turn into what we see mapped. There are human consensus processes there, there are coding processes there (including bug fixes, actual writing of render code..) there is quite much more than just that there. It is a complicated moving set of parts. It is let's map bus routes, OK, let's describe better syntax for bus routes, OK (but we don't render that today). Now what? That's a real hit the brakes and think about how to do it better, so discuss moment. As we recognize distance between what people want to see represented in the map (how they tag) with the syntax of doing so (actual tags that get into OSM's data) can we better discuss this? We can and should, I say. Deep, I know. My point is that a person wanting to understand how to influence this is very much helped by understanding it (as much of it as possible, as much of it as we can describe as what we intend...) in the first place. How might one see such moving parts of OSM and how they a) work today? and b) work better in the future as we intend them? It goes deeper than public transport tagging, but that is a good example through this transmission. Look, I know: some of us work on our transmission, and they must. A lot more of us -- and there are many -- are only quite vaguely aware of how it works, or how we might best induce positive change into its workings. We can do better. Good discussion so far, but it seems we are only scratching this surface. SteveA California -- Saikrishna Arcot signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Updating tagging of public transport
Saikrishna Arcot wrote: Part of the problem between the tagging schemes and the rendering is that it's a chicken-and-egg problem; a new tagging scheme is created, but rendering support isn't there yet (partly because it's a somewhat complex structure), so people might not use that scheme. However, if there were many instances of using the newer scheme, then it would be justified for the renderers to add support for that scheme. This is a helpful data point to know (and so thank you) but it still feels lacking in what we might do about it. Create more instances (using a new tagging scheme)? Sure, that couldn't hurt, but it may also not be enough -- it seems quite random as to what gets implemented vs. not. Maybe, in a crowdsourced project like OSM, that's just the way that it is: people do what they want to do. A slightly bigger issue I see is that there are two formats for tagging transportation routes, which will not only require data consumers to code for both formats, but will also make it harder to link a bus route tagged using the newer format be connected to another bus route using the older format. I feel that this should be resolved quickly. Yes, I agree: this is not only a bigger issue but it is also an immediate issue. The Transport layer is Right There in our faces as we browse the map as an available layer. There should be a stronger connection between what renderers are made available there (the five we have are a nice mix, but again we can do better and should strive to do so) and what syntax/tagging is supported in each of those renderers. More visibility into what might be called a project plan for each of those renderers? (Could also be too much to ask, I realize). I still feel like auxiliary renderers (Transport, Humanitarian...) which are not Standard are a big mystery in OSM. I'd like better documentation (wiki, github, whereever...I don't care so long as it is available) about what these do, why, how they get updated with better or newer rules (or even if they do) and so on. It is great that we have additional renderers, I'm just asking for greater visibility into them. I think that plants good seeds for better, different and newer renderers to emerge, and even better ways to do them. Those newer methods/processes can feed back to improve all renderers, I believe. OSM without renderers is simply a database. Renderers really are a crucial component of how our data get used, and whether those uses are more useful or less useful. Yes, I know: many folks use OSM data with custom rendering software only for their application. But, while important, those users are in the vast minority. Most of us use off the shelf renderers, and are essentially at their mercy. Let's address that with greater visibility into how they get improved. Thanks for your answers, SteveA California ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Updating tagging of public transport
it is not clear if the new way is actually better, at least the current data stats show that mappers still prefer the old method, at least for bus stops, as it is simpler (you need just one tag highway=bus_stop instead of two: public_transport=platform and bus=yes, for the same information content), and the new style cannot be rendered on the main map, because of the lack of the bus-key (the rendering db only knows that there is some kind of stop, but it cannot determine if it is a tram stop, a bus stop or whatelse). I wouldn't re-tag, ie. won't remove tags, but you can add the public_transport=* tags if you want to support also this scheme. Is what I hear Martin saying here is that tagging with an old style because it renders AND tagging with a newer syntax that doesn't is OK? (As in, doing two things at once, even if they achieve different, but good and worthy goals, is right?) If so, part of what it says is that syntax is rather distantly connected to rendering. Read that again, as I think it is important. It is about what might be called OSM's transmission. Not everybody understands the full process of how changes in syntax (e.g. voted upon tagging) turn into what we see mapped. There are human consensus processes there, there are coding processes there (including bug fixes, actual writing of render code..) there is quite much more than just that there. It is a complicated moving set of parts. It is let's map bus routes, OK, let's describe better syntax for bus routes, OK (but we don't render that today). Now what? That's a real hit the brakes and think about how to do it better, so discuss moment. As we recognize distance between what people want to see represented in the map (how they tag) with the syntax of doing so (actual tags that get into OSM's data) can we better discuss this? We can and should, I say. Deep, I know. My point is that a person wanting to understand how to influence this is very much helped by understanding it (as much of it as possible, as much of it as we can describe as what we intend...) in the first place. How might one see such moving parts of OSM and how they a) work today? and b) work better in the future as we intend them? It goes deeper than public transport tagging, but that is a good example through this transmission. Look, I know: some of us work on our transmission, and they must. A lot more of us -- and there are many -- are only quite vaguely aware of how it works, or how we might best induce positive change into its workings. We can do better. Good discussion so far, but it seems we are only scratching this surface. SteveA California ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Updating tagging of public transport
2014-11-27 21:08 GMT+01:00 Saikrishna Arcot saiarcot...@gmail.com: Not sure if this is the right list or the tagging list is better, but I see some bus and subway routes in the Atlanta area that use the older version of tagging public transport routes. Should these be updated to use the newer version of tagging? it is not clear if the new way is actually better, at least the current data stats show that mappers still prefer the old method, at least for bus stops, as it is simpler (you need just one tag highway=bus_stop instead of two: public_transport=platform and bus=yes, for the same information content), and the new style cannot be rendered on the main map, because of the lack of the bus-key (the rendering db only knows that there is some kind of stop, but it cannot determine if it is a tram stop, a bus stop or whatelse). I wouldn't re-tag, ie. won't remove tags, but you can add the public_transport=* tags if you want to support also this scheme. cheers, Martin ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Updating tagging of public transport
Throwing my hat into this one, I'm thinking the new style also reuses some of the old style tags and conventions. That said, since I'm not trying to automate a driverless bus fleet, I tend to only use the old style method. Coincidentally, this generally works out well for most situations and is nicely exportable to GTFS if you want to go full on public transport geek and set up an OpenTripPlanner instance (stretch goal for me working with the regional transit systems). On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 3:09 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-11-27 21:08 GMT+01:00 Saikrishna Arcot saiarcot...@gmail.com: Not sure if this is the right list or the tagging list is better, but I see some bus and subway routes in the Atlanta area that use the older version of tagging public transport routes. Should these be updated to use the newer version of tagging? it is not clear if the new way is actually better, at least the current data stats show that mappers still prefer the old method, at least for bus stops, as it is simpler (you need just one tag highway=bus_stop instead of two: public_transport=platform and bus=yes, for the same information content), and the new style cannot be rendered on the main map, because of the lack of the bus-key (the rendering db only knows that there is some kind of stop, but it cannot determine if it is a tram stop, a bus stop or whatelse). I wouldn't re-tag, ie. won't remove tags, but you can add the public_transport=* tags if you want to support also this scheme. cheers, Martin ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Updating tagging of public transport
I was one of the people that did a lot of work on those. Go for it. Let me know if you need help. Bill On Nov 27, 2014 3:09 PM, Saikrishna Arcot saiarcot...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, Not sure if this is the right list or the tagging list is better, but I see some bus and subway routes in the Atlanta area that use the older version of tagging public transport routes. Should these be updated to use the newer version of tagging? -- Saikrishna Arcot ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Updating tagging of public transport
On 11/27/2014 3:08 PM, Saikrishna Arcot wrote: Not sure if this is the right list or the tagging list is better, but I see some bus and subway routes in the Atlanta area that use the older version of tagging public transport routes. Should these be updated to use the newer version of tagging? I would say to go for it. Be aware that one or more of the popular map rendering style sheets only render the old style transport, so retain the old style tags if you need it rendered everywhere it currently shows. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
