[Talk-gb-westmidlands] [Talk-transit] [Spam] Re: NaPTAN dataimport

[Peter Miller]

On 8 Mar 2009, at 18:27, Joe Hughes wrote:

> Glad to hear it, and I hope to see more evidence of adoption going
> forward.  Anything that helps get more data out there in practice can
> only be good for the industry.

The adoption of Transmodel is well advanced within the industry in  
Europe in that if I am talking to someone else in the industry we will  
normally agree to talk 'Transmodel' terminology to ensure we are  
talking about the same concepts - there really isn't anything else one  
can use.

Any tender for a public transport information system in Europe is  
likely to use Transmodel terms for its requirements and many systems  
(such as those from Hogia used widely in Scandinavia) are based on  
Transmodel from top to bottom.

A good example of that was when we talked with Hugues Romain about  
OTT. He was also talking Transmodel to explain what he meant and  
everything he was talking about could be expressed using Transmodel.
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-transit/2009-February/000116.html

I believe that all the existing CEN standards in the area use  
Transmodel but that there is not (yet) a CEN standard for exchanging  
planned schedules.  Possibly this was because there were established  
national standards and proprietary standards before Transmodel became  
established as Roger suggests.

 From an OSM perspective I hope we will be able to migrate to  
Transmodel entities and names for the 10-15 concepts which are  
relevant, which include Stop Point, Stop Area, Stop Place, Quay,  
Boarding Point, Stopping Point and probably a few more.

 From a Google Transit perspective it would of course be good to be  
able to unambiguously translate between GTFS Stops and Transmodel Stop  
Points/Stop Areas and OSM bus stops/ stations/platforms etc. Currently  
GTFS, OSM and Transmodel all have concepts which are similar but for  
which there is not a direct mapping and even if the name is the same  
the functionality may not be. The complexities are already becoming  
obvious and there are only three players!


Regards,



Peter