Hi, I am a JOSM defector from Potlatch 2 so I might sound a bit odd. Directions will definitely be necessary because I have to modernise a majority of routes (most of which are outdated). The modernised routes will use route_master so that all variations may be respected where it occurs. I am giving priority to modernising Borismaster routes so that those interested can create a map of Borismaster routes.
I try to make the name as useful for all editors from all corners of the globe, and have it make sense as much as possible because I want reduce updating times for editors when London Buses implements alignment changes or long term diversions (about 30 days or more). I rejected the format "999 <direction>bound" because it would confuse with other networks such as the LCN. I am personally not aware of figure of eight routes (except for teeny ones at terminuses themselves where there are gyratories). I get the idea of the direction from the Underground signs where they say “Victoria line northbound” and “District line westbound”. A compromise scheme could take out the “route” and make it based on what the announcer says on the iBus, like "London Buses 38 to Victoria”. Thoughts prior to consideration for implementation? Also, it would be nice to have a regular bus routes guru who uses JOSM, once the routes and stops are modernised to the public transport scheme. Keeping the routes up to date would entice TfL to go to OSM. On 23 Aug 2014, at 14:12, David Woolley <for...@david-woolley.me.uk> wrote: > On 20/08/14 20:45, Antje Maroussi wrote: >> Whereas I use "London Buses route 24 Northbound” to help editors each >> variant so they can put it to the right bus stop, max93600 has been >> changing them carelessly with the comment "Modifications diverses”: >> in this editor’s recent edits, so that both directions of Bus 24 read >> "Relation: Bus 24 : Grosvenor Road ↔ Royal Free Hospital (see 3523629 >> v25 and 3523630 v26). > > My take on this is that, assuming there is no name regularly used by the > public (and which applies to the whole of the mapped route): > > - route names should contain just enough to distinguish them from other route > relations in the same area; > - as far as possible should reflect how a member of the public might refer to > them; > - sort relative to other route relations in such a way that it is easy to > find the correct one within a long list; > - ideally sort correctly relative to ones without a name. > > I think that giving both to and from destinations is going to be wrong, > unless there is are route variants that have different combinations. I think > there is a case for using the destination when using route masters, as the > destination will appear on the front of the bus. However, many people will > use buses for short hops and may think of them in terms of the direction > indicated on the stop, which is normally given as a place name much closer > than the final destination, or in terms of the local direction of travel. > However, the local direction of travel may be opposite to the general trend, > so may not be useful for the overall route. > > I like the idea of the general trend direction, as it is a simple rule, but I > think final destination may be more appropriate in some cases. An extreme > case is circular routes. The cases near me are split into different route > numbers for clockwise and anti-clockwise, but both list the same final > destination. If sharing a route number, I think those would need to be > distinguished using clockwise and anti-clockwise. (Are there any figure of > eight routes?) > > Going back to your version, I think including the network also amounts to > putting metadata in an invented name. Generally, you will not get the same > route number with different networks, in the same area, as that would confuse > the public. The exception might be national versus local buses, but that > doesn't need the full network name. > > Considering the non-route master case, particularly, putting just the route > reference as the name can clash with other networks, like cycling networks. > Either you have to give buses a privileged status, or you need to include the > fact that it is a bus route. > > If one throws in the sorting consideration, it is best to have the route > number first. That is also consistent with common usage of bus names: "catch > the [number] 21 bus". Common usage might also include "towards xxxx", but > xxxx may be an intermediate place, or a local direction of travel, so might > not be useful for naming the whole route. > > I'd therefore prefer: > > 999 Bus <direction>bound > 999 Bus towards <destination> > or > 999 Bus [anti-]clockwise > > as appeared most useful in the context, and always giving precedence to some > established name for the route. > > Incidentally, looking at one of the examples you gave, they had placed an > origin in the name, but not in the metadata, so I think they may have had a > poor understanding of metadata. > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
