On 31/10/16 13:54, Greg Troxel wrote: > Felix Delattre <felix-li...@delattre.de> 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