[Talk-transit] Public Transport schema

[Brian Prangle]

As a dedicated mapper of public transport in Birmingham I would love to
participate but I currently have limited access to email in deepest rural
france. I hope I dont havz to redo a lot of work! Thomas  Im quite proud of
Birmingham city centre bus stops  perhaps q different icon from the curent
osmarenderer one would be an improvement?

Regards

Brian

2009/6/3 <talk-transit-request at openstreetmap.org>

> Send Talk-transit mailing list submissions to
>        talk-transit at openstreetmap.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>        http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>        talk-transit-request at openstreetmap.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>        talk-transit-owner at openstreetmap.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Talk-transit digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. Re: Public transport workshop in Germany (Peter Miller)
>   2. Public transport schema (Sebastian Schwarz)
>   3. Re: Public transport schema (Thomas Wood)
>   4. Re: Public transport schema (Peter Miller)
>   5. Re: Public transport schema (Paul Johnson)
>   6. Re: Public transport schema (Thomas Wood)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 13:04:22 +0100
> From: Peter Miller <peter.miller at itoworld.com>
> Subject: Re: [Talk-transit] Public transport workshop in Germany
> To: Sarah Hoffmann <lonvia at denofr.de>, talk-transit at openstreetmap.org
> Message-ID: <E33A3721-C45A-4911-97A9-01AD515869E3 at itoworld.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed; delsp=yes
>
>
> On 1 Jun 2009, at 23:09, Sarah Hoffmann wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jun 01, 2009 at 08:05:30AM +0100, Peter Miller wrote:
> >>> For railway stations it can be sure that there is exactly one symbol
> >>> on the line of the railway neatly aligned to the middle of the way.
> >>> With the new schema a lot of preprocessing and guess work will be
> >>> required to get the same result when stop places contain multiple
> >>> stopping places and/or access points.
> >>>
> >>> The current situation with bus stops is more messy. (Just see
> >>> Birmigham which seems to entirely consist of bus stops.) While
> >>> stop places in the new schema allow to clean this up a bit, again,
> >>> the renderer only has the choice to either paint two many
> >>> symbols (all access points or all stopping points) or badly
> >>> guess where to put the single point.
> >>
> >> Which rendering view are you using? for the main Mapnik view on
> >> openstreetmap there are no bus stops until one zooms in to zoom 17 at
> >> which point there are certainly lots of bus stops (accesses).
> >
> > Yes, I had Mapnik in mind although the problem is a more general one.
> > There are no bus stops for lower zoom level because they would
> > completely clutter any map.
> >
> >> Even at zoom level 17 it may be appropriate to render bus stops at
> >> the
> >> Stop Place level of detail  (with one blob for two Accesses/bus
> >> stops on
> >> either sides of the road, or one blob for three Accesses/bus stands
> >> in a
> >> row on one side of the road).
> >
> > Rendering the Stop Place is only useful, if there is additional
> > information
> > available, e.g. the name. But how this can be displayed without
> > overwhelming the user is an unsolved problem indeed. However, I was
> > hoping of resolving the rendering of the lower zooms first.
>
> A Stop Place should have a name - I believe that is part of the
> definition of a Stop Place that it does have a recognised name.
> However it may sometimes just be appropriate to to put a single dot on
> the map for a Stop Place without a name and will be less cluttered
> that every Access.
>
> >
> >
> > Actually, looking at Birmingham in the ?PNVKarte
> >
> > http://www.?pnvkarte.de/?lat=52.47884&lon=-1.89495&zoom=17<http://www./?pnvkarte.de/?lat=52.47884&lon=-1.89495&zoom=17>
> >
> > I see that all bus stops in the inner city belong to the same
> > stop place, namely "city center". I know that this is very common in
> > the UK (and very frustrating for the visitor, but that's another
> > story).
> > How would you fit that into the proposed model? A stopping place and
> > access point for each bus_stop and then all of them into one stop
> > place
> > relation? Subdivide them by street? How do the regular users see them,
> > as single bus stops or as quais of one and the same stop?
>
> To be clear. Birmingham City Centre is too big to be a Stop Place
> (where all points should be within a few minutes walk from each
> other). 'Birmingham City Centre' is actually a locality name in
> NaPTAN. Localities are used for named settlements or suburbs. Some
> authorities create a locality for the centre of large places.
>
> >
> >>> Thus, if above example is modelled as two stop places with
> >>> oneway=yes
> >>
> >>> and both stop places are put into a stop place group
> >>> "Waffenplatzstrasse"
> >>> (together with the two bus stops, which are incidentally directional
> >>> as well) all necessary information for the renderer should be there.
> >>> Is this within the intended use of stop places and stop place
> >>> groups?
> >>> The Wiki is not very clear on this point.
> >>
> >> I agree that a direction does seem to be needed, both for the
> >> Stopping
> >> Places and also possibly for the Accesses. It is not clear how one
> >> should code the direction - A one-way tag doesn't seem to encode
> >> all the
> >> necessary information.
> >
> > This would be more a directional information that encodes in which
> > direction the vehicle will continue its journey from the stopping
> > point. This would indeed suffice. Unfortunately, it brings us back to
> > the still unresolved question of forward/backward tagging, which
> > seems to go nowhere.
>
> In NaPTAN the Accesses (bus stops) have a bearing N, NE, E etc, in
> which the vehicle leaves the stop. Slightly tricky to interpret with
> the mapping data, but the NaPTAN dataset if road dataset neutral so
> can't reference any particular road data set (OS, OSM, Navteq).
>
> >
> >> I would expect that Waffenplatzstrasse would consist of one Stop
> >> Place
> >> with two accesses and two Stopping Places. Is that sufficient or
> >> should
> >> each Access have its own Stop Place and these be grouped into a Stop
> >> Place Group? If one uses one Stop Place then how are the individual
> >> Accesses and Stopping Places associated with each other? The Accesses
> >> need names that indicate direction, such as 'Northbound', 'towards
> >> city
> >> centre', 'Sto A', 'Stand A', 'Bay A', Gate 13' etc. In the UK this
> >> information is encoded in the 'indicator' field and the Name for the
> >> Access (called Common Name) tends to be shared with the other
> >> Accesses in
> >> the Stop Place.
> >
> > Do you mean stopping place here? I'd expect this indicator to be
> > unique
> > for all accesses in a stop place.
>
> It is good practice (that is not always followed or appropriate) for
> all Acesses within a Stop Place to have the same name, but to all have
> unique indicators. I would encourage us to adopt this approach.
>
> >
> >
> > What is the relation between accesses and stopping places? There is an
> > example in the proposal of a stopping place having multiple accesses.
> > Can one access also be used for multiple stopping places?
>
> I would suggest that where one creates an Access but no Stopping Place
> that the system (or some tool) guesses that a Stopping Place on the
> nearest highway/Railway is required and that they should be connected
> with a relation.
>
> Where one Stopping Place is served by two Accesses or where a single
> Access serves two Stopping Places or where there is ambiguity about
> which highway a vehicle might stop on then we will need to create the
> Stopping Places and relations manually.
> >
> >
> >> Just to note at this point that I am concerned that we will run out
> >> of
> >> Stop Place levels as we get into this. IFOPT allows recursive Stop
> >> Places which is wonderfully general but possibly hard for renders and
> >> for our relation handling. We may want to revisit this later to allow
> >> multilevel Stop Places.
> >
> > As a programmer I love the idea of recursion, as a mapper I find it
> > awful. We should find something simpler.
>
> Ummm. I agree with your sentiments, but not necessarily with you
> optimism! We could try Heathrow Airport as a worst case mapping
> challenge. (one of the busiest air ports in the world).
>
> >
> >
> >> It feels to me that we need a little more time discussing and
> >> developing
> >> this proposal before we start tagging features with it to give us
> >> more
> >> time to refine the ideas.
> >
> > Tagging small test patches in different countries might help uncover
> > weaknesses, we cannot see in a theoretical discussion.
>
> Absolutely, but lets settle the tag names issue before doing that.
>
> I would also like us to consider separating Access from Entrance and
> use different tag names as per CEN feedback. Does anyone object
>
> Also including an option for Access Areas and Boarding Points to
> complete the model mapping to CEN.
>
> There are some outstanding suggestions about the use of route (tagging
> ways or tagging relations) which we need to bottom. Also, I feel the
> Line Variant element could do with a little review which I will do
> unless anyone objects.
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Peter
>
> >
> >
> > Sarah
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 18:34:39 +0200
> From: Sebastian Schwarz <yugo at kahlfrost.de>
> Subject: [Talk-transit] Public transport schema
> To: talk-transit at openstreetmap.org
> Message-ID: <8969E5E7-4B55-4D32-BBA1-992EF08CFA3F at kahlfrost.de>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
>
> Hi!
>
> Well, I have been en-route the last days and thus did not have time to
> respond to any of the numerous mails covering almost all aspects of
> the new proposal relating to public transport. But I see the
> discussion sort of loosing sight of the mappers. From my point of
> view, we should find a good compromise which primarily serves the
> mappers and not the CEN. So, the schema should not be as compliant as
> possible to the standards but as good as possible for the mappers -
> provided with a reasonable part of standard compliance, of course. We
> do not want to model Heathrow Airport (apart from that, airports have
> never been part of the proposal!) but we want to start with the bus
> station around the corner!
>
> @Gerrit Lammert:
> Sorry!!! Initially, we completely forgot to mention other proposals we
> used as a source of inspiration - but now, the link to your proposal
> is set. Anyway, in my diploma thesis (which I am currently doing on
> public transport in OSM) your proposal is not only refrenced but
> analyzed, too.
>
> Kind regards
>
>
> --
> Sebastian
> kahlfrost.de
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 18:18:21 +0100
> From: Thomas Wood <grand.edgemaster at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Talk-transit] Public transport schema
> To: Sebastian Schwarz <yugo at kahlfrost.de>
> Cc: talk-transit at openstreetmap.org
> Message-ID:
>        <1e14d5320906021018y42294a51t45bf771be71c9e8a at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> 2009/6/2 Sebastian Schwarz <yugo at kahlfrost.de>:
> > Hi!
> >
> > Well, I have been en-route the last days and thus did not have time to
> > respond to any of the numerous mails covering almost all aspects of
> > the new proposal relating to public transport. But I see the
> > discussion sort of loosing sight of the mappers. From my point of
> > view, we should find a good compromise which primarily serves the
> > mappers and not the CEN. So, the schema should not be as compliant as
> > possible to the standards but as good as possible for the mappers -
> > provided with a reasonable part of standard compliance, of course. We
> > do not want to model Heathrow Airport (apart from that, airports have
> > never been part of the proposal!) but we want to start with the bus
> > station around the corner!
>
> But by it's nature as the foundation of how transportation stop areas
> are represented in OSM, then airports are important as a higher tier
> of transportation. By their nature, they'll often have several other
> modes of transport related to them, metro, mainline rail, bus and
> coach services, and they should still be seen by routing software as
> an interchange that could be possibly used.
>
> In time, we will want to map them in excessive detail, whilst we have
> the opportunity, this scheme should allow the scope for further
> expansion of other transportation types.
>
> >
> > @Gerrit Lammert:
> > Sorry!!! Initially, we completely forgot to mention other proposals we
> > used as a source of inspiration - but now, the link to your proposal
> > is set. Anyway, in my diploma thesis (which I am currently doing on
> > public transport in OSM) your proposal is not only refrenced but
> > analyzed, too.
> >
> > Kind regards
> >
> >
> > --
> > Sebastian
> > kahlfrost.de
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Talk-transit mailing list
> > Talk-transit at openstreetmap.org
> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Thomas Wood
> (Edgemaster)
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 22:27:55 +0100
> From: Peter Miller <peter.miller at itoworld.com>
> Subject: Re: [Talk-transit] Public transport schema
> To: Thomas Wood <grand.edgemaster at gmail.com>
> Cc: talk-transit at openstreetmap.org
> Message-ID: <13202734-2707-4BCA-B057-A64BCC0FF824 at itoworld.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
>
>
> On 2 Jun 2009, at 18:18, Thomas Wood wrote:
>
> > 2009/6/2 Sebastian Schwarz <yugo at kahlfrost.de>:
> >> Hi!
> >>
> >> Well, I have been en-route the last days and thus did not have time
> >> to
> >> respond to any of the numerous mails covering almost all aspects of
> >> the new proposal relating to public transport. But I see the
> >> discussion sort of loosing sight of the mappers. From my point of
> >> view, we should find a good compromise which primarily serves the
> >> mappers and not the CEN. So, the schema should not be as compliant as
> >> possible to the standards but as good as possible for the mappers -
> >> provided with a reasonable part of standard compliance, of course. We
> >> do not want to model Heathrow Airport (apart from that, airports have
> >> never been part of the proposal!) but we want to start with the bus
> >> station around the corner!
> >
> > But by it's nature as the foundation of how transportation stop areas
> > are represented in OSM, then airports are important as a higher tier
> > of transportation. By their nature, they'll often have several other
> > modes of transport related to them, metro, mainline rail, bus and
> > coach services, and they should still be seen by routing software as
> > an interchange that could be possibly used.
> >
> > In time, we will want to map them in excessive detail, whilst we have
> > the opportunity, this scheme should allow the scope for further
> > expansion of other transportation types.
> >
>
> Firstly, can I say again how much your proposal is appreciated. We
> have needed to do a thorough review of PT related tagging for
> consistency for some time and your work is a great starting point.
>
> Secondly, can I apologise for tearing into you document and I hope we
> haven't ruined you thesis but from a Wikipedia perspective this is how
> good articles get written. People build something, others build on it,
> some changes stick, some get challenged and removed, but the general
> direction is positive. Your work certainly isn't going to gather dust
> on some shelf but will be used with a vengeance very soon - I just
> want to make sure that we do the design work at this stage to ensure
> that it is robust before it gets extensively used.
>
> With reference to mappers, I really don't think we are making things
> much harder for the average mapper are we? Once we agree on terms and
> definitions that is. We have rationalised platforms and bus stops and
> ferry quays into Accesses. We have renamed Stop Areas as Stop Places.
> We have added Stopping Places and Stop Place Groups. We are proposing
> a new relation binding from Accesses to Stopping Places.  I am
> proposing that we added Entrances and Boarding Points, but all these
> are optional extras to the modelling and not something that the
> average mapper needs to touch to start with.
>
> Regarding Heathrow Airport. The coach/bus station within the airport
> is the busiest in the UK (
> http://www.milesfaster.co.uk/information/heathrow-airport/heathrow-central-bus-coach-station.htm
> ) and we will of course map transport interchanges in absurd detail
> when we run out of other things to do!
>
> CEN: My experience is that one has to be careful when one doesn't
> follow standards or ignores them; the old rule, 'if you can't be good
> be careful' comes to mind. For sure, there is some nonsense in
> standards for geopolitical reasons, but transmodel is pretty clean and
> so is IFOPT. If you cut corners in relation to a CEN standard you can
> expect to come unstuck in some situation that you hadn't considered
> and then you will have to bodge it. For example by assuming that each
> stopping place has only one Access and one Access is only associated
> with one Stopping Place. I know that because I have been there and
> done it!
>
> What we have already is very good - we are not slavishly following
> CEN, but as far as I am concerned we follow it where appropriate and
> are now aware of the places where we are not following it and we are
> confident that we are doing it for a good reason and that it will
> work. The only section that has not been reviewed in relation to CEN
> is the section about Railway Routes, Railway Lines and Line Variants
> which again is close but we can still learn from CEN and clarify the
> language.
>
> Ok...   Um.... Well...   So I have now just looked at the current
> version of the document and noticed that you have reverted just about
> all my changes over the past few days. I find that rather unnecessary
> and I would like to have some clarification about why that was
> necessary or useful to do that without consultation. For sure some
> changes could be challenged, but all of them? No one else had
> challenged them on the list on the wiki since Saturday. Fyi, Here is
> the difference between the version just before I made my first changes
> and the current version (they are basically the same).
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php?title=User:Oxomoa/Public_transport_schema&diff=280182&oldid=278379
>
> And here is the difference between the last version I touched and the
> current version. I think it is clear that a huge amount of work has
> been removed without discussion, including reverting 'loading gauge'
> to millimetres when it is most certainly more complex than that as I
> explained; reverting Stop Place to Stop Area without explanation (a
> clash with CEN terminology). Removing the alphabetical sort order for
> the the railways section for no obvious reason. Removing '{{tag|route|
> ferry}}' and reverting it to 'non-existent' etc etc.
>
> Could I politely suggest that we revert the document to the place
> where Nixim left the document on the 31st having added '{{tag|route|
> ferry}}'. For sure then make changes from there that you thing are
> good, but do build on the previous work as this is the normal way.
>
> Can I also suggest that we move the page to the general wiki space and
> out of your user area as this page has now definitely graduated from
> being just a personal page.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
>
> Peter
>
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Peter
>
>
>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Talk-transit mailing list
> >> Talk-transit at openstreetmap.org
> >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> > Thomas Wood
> > (Edgemaster)
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Talk-transit mailing list
> > Talk-transit at openstreetmap.org
> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 18:22:14 -0700
> From: Paul Johnson <baloo at ursamundi.org>
> Subject: Re: [Talk-transit] Public transport schema
> To: talk-transit at openstreetmap.org
> Message-ID: <spvgf6xidh.ln2 at ursa-major.network.ursamundi.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Thomas Wood wrote:
> > 2009/6/2 Sebastian Schwarz <yugo at kahlfrost.de>:
> >> Hi!
> >>
> >> Well, I have been en-route the last days and thus did not have time to
> >> respond to any of the numerous mails covering almost all aspects of
> >> the new proposal relating to public transport. But I see the
> >> discussion sort of loosing sight of the mappers. From my point of
> >> view, we should find a good compromise which primarily serves the
> >> mappers and not the CEN. So, the schema should not be as compliant as
> >> possible to the standards but as good as possible for the mappers -
> >> provided with a reasonable part of standard compliance, of course. We
> >> do not want to model Heathrow Airport (apart from that, airports have
> >> never been part of the proposal!) but we want to start with the bus
> >> station around the corner!
> >
> > But by it's nature as the foundation of how transportation stop areas
> > are represented in OSM, then airports are important as a higher tier
> > of transportation.
>
> Depends on the part of the world.  If you're in the US, the pain in the
> ass, time required and sheer expense associated with air travel starts
> making Amtrak, VIARail and booking rooms on transoceanic cargo ships
> starts looking like a real attractive option regardless of the distance,
> relegating air travel to a more useless position than the US NCN...
>
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: signature.asc
> Type: application/pgp-signature
> Size: 260 bytes
> Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
> Url :
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-transit/attachments/20090602/8b78a265/attachment-0001.pgp
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 10:52:10 +0100
> From: Thomas Wood <grand.edgemaster at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Talk-transit] Public transport schema
> To: Paul Johnson <baloo at ursamundi.org>
> Cc: talk-transit at openstreetmap.org
> Message-ID:
>        <1e14d5320906030252l508eef5y96949ca6bc2a72bf at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> I am not considering air travel on a national level, international
> (possibly even inter-continental) routing is an area I'd like to see
> developed :)
>
> On 03/06/2009, Paul Johnson <baloo at ursamundi.org> wrote:
> > Thomas Wood wrote:
> >> 2009/6/2 Sebastian Schwarz <yugo at kahlfrost.de>:
> >>> Hi!
> >>>
> >>> Well, I have been en-route the last days and thus did not have time to
> >>> respond to any of the numerous mails covering almost all aspects of
> >>> the new proposal relating to public transport. But I see the
> >>> discussion sort of loosing sight of the mappers. From my point of
> >>> view, we should find a good compromise which primarily serves the
> >>> mappers and not the CEN. So, the schema should not be as compliant as
> >>> possible to the standards but as good as possible for the mappers -
> >>> provided with a reasonable part of standard compliance, of course. We
> >>> do not want to model Heathrow Airport (apart from that, airports have
> >>> never been part of the proposal!) but we want to start with the bus
> >>> station around the corner!
> >>
> >> But by it's nature as the foundation of how transportation stop areas
> >> are represented in OSM, then airports are important as a higher tier
> >> of transportation.
> >
> > Depends on the part of the world.  If you're in the US, the pain in the
> > ass, time required and sheer expense associated with air travel starts
> > making Amtrak, VIARail and booking rooms on transoceanic cargo ships
> > starts looking like a real attractive option regardless of the distance,
> > relegating air travel to a more useless position than the US NCN...
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Thomas Wood
> (Edgemaster)
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-transit mailing list
> Talk-transit at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
>
>
> End of Talk-transit Digest, Vol 6, Issue 3
> ******************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-transit/attachments/20090603/9ec8dc04/attachment.html>