[Talk-transit] OSM Transit platform: call for action

[Tiziano D'Angelo]

Thanks for all the inputs! Actually, today I did a quick google search with
"open source transit" and found out a couple of interesting website:
http://onebusaway.org/ which offers right what I was looking for
(multi-platform, open-source, gtfs...) and the twin project:
http://opentripplanner.org/ (support of OSM, GTFS)
well...the tools are there, we could give a look to them and start planning
something :)
I guess timetable infos and other details can reside into GTFS, while OSM
stands for simple route rendering + map background.
An import/export GTFS<->OSM tool should be designed for easy conversion and
use,

Ciao
Tiziano

On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 19:40, McGuire, Matthew <
Matt.McGuire at metc.state.mn.us> wrote:

>  >Can you please elaborate what "Google specifications" are? I think I
> have heard of such, but failed to find them. Any hints?
>
>
>
> GTFS – General Transit Feed Specification formerly Google Transit Feed
> Specification
>
> http://code.google.com/transit/spec/transit_feed_specification.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* talk-transit-bounces at openstreetmap.org [mailto:
> talk-transit-bounces at openstreetmap.org] *On Behalf Of *Michal Borsuk
> *Sent:* Monday, June 28, 2010 12:17 PM
> *To:* Public transport/transit/shared taxi related topics
> *Subject:* Re: [Talk-transit] OSM Transit platform: call for action
>
>
>
>
>
> On 28 June 2010 18:39, Vincent Pottier <vpottier at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Le 28/06/2010 17:37, Michał Borsuk a écrit :
>
>
>
>   * no approved standard. Should the stops be within the line as a point,
> or as their physical location shows?
>
> If I have well understood the question, I think that a bus stop must be
> mapped where it is physicaly, and not on the line. So at a bus stop you
> usualy have two nodes one on left, one on right.
>
>
> Sure, this is my logic. But the currently most applied oxomoa standard
> states otherwise.
>
>
>
>
>   Should we map a separate relation just for the branch of the line from
> the split, or for the entire line?
>
> For the entire line. It is easy to make a copy of a relation in JOSM, a to
> fulfill it.
>
>
> 1. Aren't they going to appear as separate lines in openbusmap (ÖPNVkarte)?
> Or do they have to be nested in another relation, which is clearly against
> the intention of the authors of relations?
> 2. JOSM in hands of beginners = disaster (if they ever get past the
> installation stage). Personally I try to avoid JOSM as much as possible.
> Personal preferences.
>
>
>
>
>   What is the point of having two relations for two directions in Europe?
> IMHO Oxomoa seems way too difficult for beginners, and it's overblown. The
> overhead needed to maintain the standard is WAY too big. I have calculated
> that sticking to the standard would cost me 25 to 50% more time, with just
> marginally better results. The time to understand the standard is also not
> to be ignored. A new standard, better suited but compatible with what has
> been done is needed.
>
> I feel also that the Oxoma schema is sometimes too eavy.
> But for maintenance two relations, one in each way, is easyer to maintain
> for me.
> Because the road taken in the two ways are very often different.
>
>
> Surely if so! But if the difference is such that one direction goes on one
> side of the avenue, and other direction of course goes on the other side of
> the trees, then the road's "one_direction" tag kind of makes it clear where
> the bus goes. If we intend to show routing on OSM in the future, then
> missing pieces of information that would have to be entered by hand can be
> dealt with by software.
>
> That's why I asked about a tree-structured lines, e.g. RER. Presently one
> has to map one entire line, then copy it as another version. And what if I
> don't know the entire line? Do I copy the non-complete version and then deal
> with extending 8 identical relations towards their terminus? Or if the
> relation is remporarily re-routed due to construction, do I also have to
> play with all versions?
>
>
>  Having ordered members in the relation is an easy way to find a mistake
> in JOSM.
>
>
> Is JOSM an integral part of OSM, or is it only one of the three editors?
> Each editor is responsible for ca 1/3 of edits, and I would be really
> hesitant to force upon users features that can be done only in JOSM.
> Personal preferences of editors are not important?
>
>
>  With two stops (one on each side of the road) it is easier to fill the
> right relation with the right stop.
>
>
> It was just a rhetoric question to show how "disconnected from reality"
> oxomoa can be. As a principle I dislike criticizing without providing an
> alternative, so I would be very interested in having a discussion on
> improving the schema. I strongly believe that it is possible to improve it
> without damaging compatibility.
>
>
> The schema could seem too difficult for a beginner but:
> The beginners don't start mapping with a transport network.
> The reality is complex.
>
>
> Surely total beginners should not be allowed to mess with maps, this is not
> wikipedia. But having mapped 97% of lines in my area I still consider myself
> a beginner. Maybe not a total one, but still, I find the learning curve a
> bit complex. Do we want to keep the project elitist?
>
>  The tools are more and more handful.
>
>
> Really? I know three: potlatch, merkaartor and josm. Are there any others,
> excluding plugins?
>
>
>
>
> I'm sure that the Google specifications are usually enough. How can we map
> them ?
>
>
> Can you please elaborate what "Google specifications" are? I think I have
> heard of such, but failed to find them. Any hints?
>
>
>
>
>   To sum it all up, at present I decided to put the lines on the map just
> so that openbusmap.org (ÖPNVkarte) can show them, but details must wait. I
> suggest that you just remember what you want to introduce, and I suggest
> that presently we work on slimming the oxomoa suggestion to make them scale
> better, that is to make them accessible to beginners, as well as usable for
> pros. In my opinion OSM is no Wikipedia, where one can just click Edit and
> produce sensible results. We need to step out to prospective editors, make
> the experience less of a hell for beginners.
>
>  With a good documentation, maybe the beginners would understand the
> schema. But you are right, the Oxoma page is not synthetic!
>
>
>
> I am repeating myself, but I seem to be a bit newer than you people are, so
> let me share my experience: the learning curve to producing a sensible
> network is a hell. The worst point is to try to stick to oxomoa. It is
> fairly easy to start mapping one bus line, but then it becomes very
> difficult to get everything under control. I don't want to sh*t on the
> standard, because it is the only one, but I suggest we get to work pretty
> early to divide the entire process of mapping lines into a few (I would see
> two-three) different levels of difficulty, on which I will elaborate in a
> separate email for clarity.
>
>
> Greetings,
>
>
> --
> Best regards, mit freundlichen Grüssen, meilleurs sentiments, Pozdrowienia,
>
>
> Michał Borsuk
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-transit mailing list
> Talk-transit at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-transit/attachments/20100629/51923858/attachment.html>