2016-10-30 21:27 GMT+01:00 Greg Troxel <g...@lexort.com>: > > Felix Delattre <felix-li...@delattre.de> 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@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
