[Tagging] Public Transport Timetables

Paul Allen pla16021 at gmail.com
Thu Nov 8 22:00:26 UTC 2018

On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 9:43 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick <graemefitz1 at gmail.com>

> On Thu, 8 Nov 2018 at 22:28, Paul Allen <pla16021 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> All of them. :)
>> Seriously, which one I'd want would depend upon circumstances.
> Agree with you, but I don't think we need to provide all those options,
> just get the viewer to the right website, because once they're there, there
> are links provided by the operator to go to other pages etc.

It wasn't clear to me (from casual inspection) that operators would not
necessarily do that.  If I
understand it correctly (quite possibly not) your examples are not GTFS
feeds but timetables
derived from them.

> I think that the "next bus" page would be better one to land on, as it's
> simpler / easier to read, while the "full timetable" page may be a bit
> unwieldy on a mobile phone?

Good point.  Especially as around here full timetables are PDF because
that's all the local
operators and county council can figure out to produce timetables.

Maybe have the tag more general so it can link to non-gtfs
>> timetables on operator websites too.  Maybe we don't even have to specify
>> gtfs
> "Timetable" with the URL? Had a quick search & can't see that timetable is
> yet in use as a tag. Perhaps "schedule" but I personally prefer timetable
> for bus & so on times.

Timetable works for me.  We could just use url=* but it's possible we'll
find another purpose for
that in some situation and timetable=* would make it clear to data

And please don't forget the possibility of a single route having two
>> operator whose GTFS feeds
>> list only their own vehicles on that route. The tag has to deal with
>> that.  And semi-colon separators
>> aren't viable
> Simple way may just be multiple timetable tags -
> "timetable:red_busline=URL*" "timetable:blue_busline=URL*"

That was a suggestion I made earlier in the thread, but nobody responded
either way.  Only problem
with that is do we insist on the operator name even when there's only one
operator?  Probably best
if we do.  Of course, then there's the problem of ensuring mappers use a
consistent name for an
operator, and how we handle collisions.  It looks like traveline has
assigned unique operator
codes for UK operators and it would seem very sensible to re-use those.

Here's another stop nearby, which is a fairly major hub
> https://jp.translink.com.au/plan-your-journey/stops/300018, which has 12
> separate routes stopping there.

If we're going to apply timetable:operator=* to a relation for a route,
that's not a problem.  If we're going to
apply it to stops then it will have to be timetable:route_ref:operator=*.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20181108/c5f4ac8b/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list