<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
On 04/04/2011 19:36, Stuart Grimshaw wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:BANLkTikzZCXNuSDthx6nSfA5fM3Ba5vYgg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Ed Avis <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:eda@waniasset.com"><eda@waniasset.com></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">What we seem to be edging towards is a mixed tagging of route_ref and relations,
being respectively the 'rough' and 'proper' way to tag bus routes, and the need
for some lint-like tool to reconcile the two - at least as far as migrating data
from route_ref to the ideal tagging.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
The problem with tagging routes on a map is that they change s often.
We saw during Sheffield's Transport Hack Day this weekend when the
guys from our local travel authority showed us how bus routes don't
just change from month to month, they change depending on the time of
day!
Some routes stop after a certain time of day, or they follow a
different route at weekends. They follow a different route for 1
journey before or after school and they go to different stops because
of roadworks.
They publish 2 sets of data, 1 that includes all stops, and one that
includes only the stops that are currently in use, however whichever
set of data they use for their web based bus information, they get
complaints from various people.
To keep this information accurate you really would have to update it
automatically, and given OSM's nature and the work people have done
that might automatically be updated I'm not sure that would be an
achievable goal.
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org">Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb">http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
This is a common point made by UK & US Transport professionals,
but I think it reflects their perspective as planners implementing
changes. From a passenger's perspective it helps to have a degree of
continuity in service numbers and routes: not least because frequent
change is a good way of ensuring loss of custom.<br>
<br>
However, as Tom Chance says many bus routes stay more or less
unchanged in essentials for decades. For instance Ed Parsons
recently <a
href="http://twitter.com/edparsons/statuses/54086532159635456">tweeted
</a>about the <a
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Buses_route_285">285</a>
having RATP decals on the buses, and I instantly knew the bus he
wastalkign about. Wikipedia notes the one major route change I
remember in 1994, when instead of going straight into Heathrow it
did a big circuit on the N-side, which IIRC is why I stopped using
it. Pretty stable. Elsewhere in London, the 16 red bus still runs up
Edgware Road as it did in 1979, and the 154 along Stanley Park Road
as it did in 1983.<br>
<br>
Further afield the map in 1912 Baedeker is still pretty good for
Zurich tram routes, although no. 1 died a long time ago.<br>
<br>
The places where I follow bus changes with some degree of regularity
might not be typical, but I think are adequately representative. <br>
<ul>
<li>Nottingham has had <b>one</b> major change in service
patterns since the demise of its tram network in late 1930s.
This was under ten years ago when all routes changed to a
hub-and-spoke system against the older cross-town routes. Since
then there has been minor tweaking of the NCT network, and
introduction of some smaller buses. At the moment there seems to
be a flurry of new services being introduced by new operators
which are far harder to keep track of than changes in the main
existing routes. </li>
<li>Maidenhead & Windsor tends to see significant changes to
route numbering every couple of years. However the basic routes
have not changed significantly: most of the changes are attempts
to find cross-town journeys which make reliable timetabling
easier. The one route segment which was dropped was reintroduced
fairly quickly. Country bus services are far more vulnerable to
change and this usually just means dropping parts of the route
or hitting service frequency.</li>
</ul>
I don't believe bus travellers are using (or will use) OSM for bus
routing (CS types might, see talk-transit <i>passim</i>): but there
is far too much attention focused on the actual journey, rather than
using maps to gain an appreciation of the possible. I usually look
at bus maps to a) see if the proposed destination is practicable by
public transport; b) is that still true on the day in question
(usually Sunday), and only then do I start looking at timetables.
Somewhere like Switzerland I only really need a very basic map of
the system and can then rely on <a
href="http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taktfahrplan">Taktfahrplannung</a>
to do the rest (see <a
href="http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taktfahrplan">here</a> for a
single sheet route map cum timetable for the SwissRailways). Sadly,
the chances of having such a system in Britain are negligible. I'm
with the German & Japanese folk that Chris Osbourne <a
href="http://twitter.com/osbornec/status/47739100672958464">tweeted
</a>about.<br>
<br>
So my basic conclusion is that having the route with the more
significant variants in OSM is perfectly adequate for what lots of
people want to use the data for (its good enough). All the extras of
late night services, shortened routes at certain times of day,
school services, work services, shopping services, temporary route
alterations are pretty much ephemeral to what we can and should do
in OSM. This was why Steve Coast floated the transiki idea.<br>
<br>
Jerry<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>