[Tagging] Public Transport Timetables

Yves yvecai at mailbox.org
Tue Nov 6 19:57:17 UTC 2018


Are you looking for a general transit feed specification?
:)
Yves 

Le 6 novembre 2018 20:22:18 GMT+01:00, djakk djakk <djakk.djakk at gmail.com> a écrit :
>Ok I see.
>
>I am still a bit reluctant to your proposal since the travelling time
>between 2 stops can vary during the day, especially for train routes.
>Ok there is the possibility of adding a new timetable relation ...
>
>Moreover, I think that data inputs from the ground can not be done with
>your proposal (it needs to know the timetable for the whole line),
>we’ll
>depend on GTFS file actually :-/
>
>Julien “djakk”
>
>
>
>Le mar. 6 nov. 2018 à 19:27, Jo <winfixit at gmail.com> a écrit :
>
>> Yes, very hard to debug and we already established some change every
>few
>> months. So after a change from the operator. One traveler will update
>one
>> of those schedules, Another may do so for 3 stops down the line, in
>the
>> mean time the stops in between and after are not updated yet. A
>maintenance
>> nightmare. The way I proposed it, suffers less from that problem.
>When
>> timetables change it's usually that trips are added or removed or
>their
>> start time changes slightly. The time to get from one stop to the
>next will
>> remain constant, most of the time.
>>
>> Jo
>>
>> Op di 6 nov. 2018 om 18:40 schreef djakk djakk
><djakk.djakk at gmail.com>:
>>
>>> I don’t get it ...
>>>
>>> With my point of view, one route with 15 stops has 15 timetables,
>each
>>> timetable describes the arrival time and the departure time of
>several
>>> trips at the stop.
>>>
>>> There must be the same number of trips along the stops’ timetables.
>>> (Otherwise this is an other route).
>>>
>>> You mean, if somebody messed up and add an extra trip inside a
>timetable,
>>> this would be hard to figure ?
>>>
>>> Julien “djakk”
>>>
>>>
>>> Le mar. 6 nov. 2018 à 18:30, Jo <winfixit at gmail.com> a écrit :
>>>
>>>> If you have a single one for a stop/route pair, no problem. As soon
>as
>>>> you have a few hundred and the information in them starts to
>conflict with
>>>> other another timetable relation for the same route it will be
>extremely
>>>> hard to figure out where it went wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Polyglot
>>>>
>>>> Op di 6 nov. 2018 om 17:08 schreef djakk djakk
><djakk.djakk at gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> In which case a timetable per stop and per route is unmaintable ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Julien “djakk”
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Le mar. 6 nov. 2018 à 16:59, djakk djakk <djakk.djakk at gmail.com> a
>>>>> écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>>> I think it is important to have an osm object describing the
>timetable
>>>>>> user-oriented for simple editing without any tool.
>>>>>> The mapper is at a bus stop, takes a picture of the timetable,
>can
>>>>>> import it later in osm without the need of any extra tool.
>>>>>> Validator can be inside a tool.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Julien « djakk »
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Le mar. 6 nov. 2018 à 16:46, djakk djakk <djakk.djakk at gmail.com>
>a
>>>>>> écrit :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Almost that ! Sometimes bus stops does not have their official
>>>>>>> timetable, the user have to refer to the closest previous bus
>stop having
>>>>>>> an official timetable. So this kind of bus stop may not have a
>timetable in
>>>>>>> osm (except an osm mapper really wants to put it into osm,
>knowing per
>>>>>>> habits the schedule).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Julien « djakk »
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Le mar. 6 nov. 2018 à 16:28, Jo <winfixit at gmail.com> a écrit :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You mean per stop/route pair? That's an incredible s amount of
>>>>>>>> relations! It seems to me that it would be a nighmare to try
>and maintain
>>>>>>>> it that way. At first sight it seems simpler, but with the new
>proposal i
>>>>>>>> came up with, you can see how the stops of a variation in
>itinerary tie
>>>>>>>> together.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If the vehicle remains in the station longer, the roles could
>become
>>>>>>>> 00:30-00:35 instead of simply 00:35 for the departure offset to
>the time
>>>>>>>> the vehicle left at its first stop.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Seeing the stops in the timetable relation in the order they
>are
>>>>>>>> served also enables comparing this with the stops sequence in
>the route
>>>>>>>> relation they refer to, adding additional possibilities for
>validation of
>>>>>>>> the data.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The stops in a timetable sequence should always be a subset of
>the
>>>>>>>> stops in a route relation and appear in the same order.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Polyglot
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Op di 6 nov. 2018 om 16:07 schreef djakk djakk <
>>>>>>>> djakk.djakk at gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I’ll agree with Leif, having a timetable relation per stop is
>>>>>>>>> better.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes Leif, there can be a delay expressed in minutes instead of
>an
>>>>>>>>> arrival-departure pair of time.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Julien « djakk »
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Le mar. 6 nov. 2018 à 16:04, djakk djakk
><djakk.djakk at gmail.com> a
>>>>>>>>> écrit :
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In order to reduce the length of the value of the departures=
>tag,
>>>>>>>>>> should we allow this kind of abstraction level :
>departures=5:35 ; 6:35 ;
>>>>>>>>>> [7-19]:[05;35] ; 20:35 ; 21:35  ?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Julien « djakk »
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Le mar. 6 nov. 2018 à 15:41, djakk djakk
><djakk.djakk at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>> a écrit :
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Martin, maybe locals do know their bus stop timetable, as
>they
>>>>>>>>>>> always use the service they may memorize the schedules ... ?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Julien
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Le lun. 5 nov. 2018 à 17:08, Jo <winfixit at gmail.com> a écrit
>:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Leif,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You made me do it! :-) I sort of stole your proposal and
>started
>>>>>>>>>>>> creating a new one. It differs in rather important ways
>from your proposal,
>>>>>>>>>>>> so I preferred not modifying your wiki page. I also think
>it's important to
>>>>>>>>>>>> decouple the (voting for a) full timetable solution from
>the solution where
>>>>>>>>>>>> tags are added to indicate interval during 'opening_hours'
>or a route,
>>>>>>>>>>>> which is a lot more likely to be accepted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So here goes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Public_transport_timetables
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Please let me know what you think. What I still haven't
>figured
>>>>>>>>>>>> out yet is how to differ weekdays that fall in school
>holiday periods from
>>>>>>>>>>>> "normal" weekdays. So work in progress.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Polyglot
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Op za 3 nov. 2018 om 16:25 schreef Leif Rasmussen <
>>>>>>>>>>>> 354lbr at gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Polyglot:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that having a timetable relation for each stop is
>less
>>>>>>>>>>>>> complicated than having one per route.  There are several
>advantages to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) People can easily add a single relation at a time,
>rather
>>>>>>>>>>>>> than having to do the entire line at one time.  This could
>make it much
>>>>>>>>>>>>> easier to, for example, have a StreetComplete quest asking
>"What are the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> arrival times of bus X at this bus stop?"  iD could also
>have a field at
>>>>>>>>>>>>> bus stops with "arrivals for each parent bus route" that
>would allow people
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to seamlessly create timetable relations.  It also makes
>more features
>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible in the future, such as additional tags to each
>timetable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) The system is easier for newbies to learn to use.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The disadvantage is that there are now a ton of relations
>per
>>>>>>>>>>>>> bus / train / subway route.  Creating these could made
>easier by a new JOSM
>>>>>>>>>>>>> plugin.  Also, if someone wanted to delete all timetable
>relations that are
>>>>>>>>>>>>> part of a route, they could simply use this overpass query
>to download the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> data into JOSM and then delete all of the timetable
>relations:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Dlf
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If people really prefer a single timetable relation for
>each
>>>>>>>>>>>>> route, then I will go with that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Julien:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why not have a "delay"="<amount of time between arrival
>and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> departure at this platform>" tag instead of separate
>arrivals/departures
>>>>>>>>>>>>> tags?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Leif Rasmussen
>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tagging mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>> Tagging mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20181106/2dacc05a/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list