[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Public Transport v3

Paul Allen pla16021 at gmail.com
Wed Mar 11 17:48:02 UTC 2020

On Wed, 11 Mar 2020 at 16:56, Guillaume Rischard <openstreetmap at stereo.lu>

> You talk a lot about ‘thinking like a router’.

Actually, thinking like EVERY router used by every renderer that chooses to
show bus/rail routes.  And then adding vias to ensure they ALL give the
result (tagging for the routers as opposed to tagging for the renderer) and
hoping future changes (new roads, changes to sped limits, changes to router
algorithms/weightings, etc) don't cause any of those routers to change their
minds.  Because I want the displayed route to EXACTLY match the canonical
route, not be an approximation (I am prepared, if forced to, to relax that
constraint on long-distance routes but it's not negotiable on urban routes).

Of course you’d have the route shown in your editor. Try this demo
> <https://webertest.fix.lu/?hl=en&alt=0&srv=0&loc=49.5165995,6.1020931&loc=49.5195552,6.1100109&loc=49.520066,6.114699&loc=49.5241325,6.1299225&loc=49.5274712,6.1328087&loc=49.5353465,6.1455211&loc=49.5372618,6.1452036&loc=49.541159,6.1454689&loc=49.5451328,6.1499193&loc=49.5483431,6.1510445&loc=49.5649046,6.1620726&loc=49.5677726,6.1610153&loc=49.5716992,6.1598965&loc=49.5734203,6.1573573&loc=49.5773809,6.153793&loc=49.5818253,6.148601&loc=49.5859825,6.1438605&loc=49.5914094,6.1405085&loc=49.5935995,6.1387638&loc=49.5951199,6.1355301&loc=49.5999267,6.133256&loc=49.6117728,6.1259301&loc=49.6156404,6.1268042&loc=49.6183457,6.1360131&loc=49.6212951,6.1396874&loc=49.6248014,6.1460285&loc=49.6272599,6.1518127&loc=49.629436,6.1571237&loc=49.6325723,6.1614057&loc=49.6357697,6.16923&loc=49.6359979,6.1759964&loc=49.6157549,6.209491&loc=49.6170374,6.2159632&loc=49.6161134,6.2200392&loc=49.615585,6.2223808&loc=49.6147628,6.2170908&loc=49.6131148,6.2115943> to
> get a rough idea. It even has a ‘create relation in josm’ button at the
> bottom left.

Maybe it's the lack of instructions, but I couldn't make it do anything
Trying to get it to load the route into JOSM caused a "bad request" error
because of the size of the data.  There are other buttons that do things
seem to have nothing whatsoever to do with the route and I have no idea
what they are displaying.  So all it gives me, that I can make sense of, is
set of map pins showing stops and vias.  Colour me unimpressed.

The proposer suggested that editors would, in future, incorporate a router
but that
doesn't guarantee it will use the same algorithms/weightings as the routers
by renderers.  So with a future editor I no longer have to think like a
because the editor will do that for me.  Except the routers used by
renderers may come up with a different route.  So even if the editor
shows me a route that matches the canonical route, the renderers may

You also accuse John of not having mapped bus routes.

He certainly appears to have no experience of mapping urban bus routes
in my part of the world, given that he didn't think bus routes would pass
highway=residential.  Bus routes passing through housing estates are very
common in my part of the world.  He also appeared to have given little
or no thought to hail and ride sections of routes, also very common in my
part of the world.

Whatever experience you two have of mapping bus routes elsewhere, you
seem to have little grasp of mapping the sort of bus routes I encounter.
wouldn't be too much of a problem for me if PTV3 were an alternative to PTV2
(until I wanted to ride on a route mapped with PTV3 and started to worry
when the bus I was on diverged from the route on the map) but you now want
PTV3 to replace PTV2.

PTV3 may make life easier for you when mapping the type of routes you map.
It would make life harder for me.  I have an idea that might lead to a
that would keep both of us happy (well, not make either of us very unhappy)
but I'm probably wrong about that since I can understand the problems of
mapping long-distance routes with PTV2 but you see no problem using PTV3 for

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200311/40aad01c/attachment.htm>

More information about the Tagging mailing list