Which is why I believe that it’s better to use GTFS data, and auto snap the GTFS data to the OSM data. There then needs to be some hints in the OSM data as to which roads buses do and don’t or shouldn’t run on. Bus routes also change far more frequently than fixed infrastructure or cycle or walking routes, hence why I think a different way to deal with the data is appropriate.
Shaun On 1 Dec 2013, at 10:17, Jo <winfi...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > This subject has come up here and there already. I'm in the process of adding > public transport routes for all the buses and trams in my region. > > - each variation of a route gets its own route relation > - at times there are 40 variations > - on average 2-6 > - buses tend to use the same ways for several routes, which is logical as > that' s where the stops are. > > This means that there are main roads with up to 70 bus routes on them. > > If somebody wants to split that into 2 oneways, it's a lot of work to fix all > those route relations. > > There is an easy solution to this problem: work hierarchically > > routes should be allowed to contain subroutes > > This is already done for some foot/hiking routes. > > An example: > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2336780 > > which is composed of several route_parts: > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2336774 > > These route parts can then also be used for other routes which also use that > same asphalt (I didn' t do that in the example). > > When somebody splits/recombines a way, there are 2 route_part relations to > fix and all the parents that depend on stay correct automatically. > > It's necessary, of course, that the routes still get rendered when divided > into subroutes like that, otherwise it' s quite useless. > > Does it make sense to make a proposal for this on the wiki, or will it be > shot down immediately? I've been giving this a lot of thought and I see we're > about to hit a brick wall. What I don't understand is that I seem to be the > only one who sees it this way. Yes, I hear people complain about the > multitude of relations every once in a while, but I don't ever see anyone > propose a solution. > > It may seem more complicated this way, but it isn't really. It may also seem > like adding yet more relations, but there will be less relations on the > actual ways. > > Maintenance of the route relations the way they are now, is an incredible > waste of time. Time that could be spent in a more productive way. Either for > the project or IRL. > > Polyglot > _______________________________________________ > Talk-transit mailing list > Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
_______________________________________________ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
