[Talk-transit] Public transport validator+generator from Maps.Me

Tue Jun 11 16:28:11 UTC 2019

Here in Flanders, Belgium we have some market (single day/week) and school
(only 1 or 2 trips/day) buses and also some lines with a circular pattern
that only have a single route relation in the route_master relation. It's
unusual, but it's not wrong. Let me know if you need examples.

Jo

On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 6:14 PM Alexey Zakharenkov via Talk-transit <
talk-transit at openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Hi, Noémie, Mateusz and others!
>
> I’ve extracted all the generated error messages from our subway validator
> source and list them below with some comments. You’ll see that most of them
> concern topology of a transport network which requires much programming and
> cannot be expressed in terms of MapCSS rules.
> Please express your opinion if you consider some checks to be arguable.
>
> *) "Stop area has multiple stations".
> This error prevents from ambiguous binding of
> stop_position/platform/subway_entrances to a station, as well as from
> accidental duplicating of stations.
>
> *) "Tracks in a stop_area relation"
>
> *) "Only exits for a station, no entrances"
>
> *) "No exits for a station"
>
> *) "Stop position is not a node"
>
> *) "Not a stop or platform in a route relation"
>
> *) "Multiple stops for a station in a route relation"
>
> *) "Cannot find nodes in a railway".
> Detects broken OSM ways with 0 or 1 node.
>
> *) "Stop is nowhere near the track"
>
> *) "Public transport version is 1".
> We encourage to convert relations with public_transport:version=1 to newer
> scheme.
>
> *) "Ambiguous station in route. Please use stop_position or split
> interchange stations".
> This happens if a station object (i.e. a railway=station, not a
> stop_position) is in a route relation, and this station is included into
> several stop_areas; or when there are multiple stations of the same
> transport mode in a stop_area.
>
> *) "Found an out-of-place stop/platform".
> The correct (from the validator's point of view) variants of
> stops/platforms order in a route relation are:
>  - "st_1  st_2  st_3  st_4" (only stops)
>  - "pl_1  pl_2  pl_3  pl_4" (only platforms)
>  - "st_1 pl_1  st_2 pl_2  st_3 pl_3  st_4 pl_4" (stops and platforms
> grouped by station)
>  - "st_1 pl_1  pl_2 st_2   st_3  pl_4" (somewhere only a stop, somewhere
> only a platform, somewhere both)
>  - "st_1 st_2 st_3 st_4  pl_1 pl_2 pl_3 pl_4" (all stops first, then all
> platforms)
>  Incorrect order:
>  - "st_1  st_2 pl_2  st_3  pl_1  st_4" (pl_1 or st_1 or both are out of
> place)
>
> *) "Untagged object in a route".
> Occurs quite often, for example when all tags from a stop_position were
> transferred to another node but old node is kept in a route relation.
>
> *) "An under construction stop/platform in route".
> Though it's unclear to me whether under-construction features should be
> added to routes.
>
> *) "Missing station=<mode> on a feature".
> Requires that railway=station/halt object be tagged with
> 'station=subway/light_rail/monorail' or have '<mode>=yes’. ’train’ mode is
> silently assumed for railways.
>
> *) "<Feature> is not connected to a station in route".
> Occurs when a stop_position/platform is not included in a stop_area or the
> stop_area is missing a station object.
>
> *) "Route has no stops"
>
> *) "Route has only one stop"
>
> *) "Angle between stops around <station> is too narrow, <number> degrees".
> A sharp twist of a route most probably indicates incorrect stops order.
>
> *) "Route has different network from master"
>
> *) "Incompatible PT mode: route_master has <mode1> and route has <mode2>"
>
> *) "Route in two route_masters"
>
> *) "Stop area belongs to multiple interchanges"
>
> *) "An empty route master. Please set construction:route if it is under
> construction"
>
> *) "Only one route in route_master. Please check if it needs a return
> route".
> Non-circular route must have a reversed one. For circular route this is a
> warning.
>
> *) The validator also compares the number of found stations/routes in a
> network with predefined values from CSV. This kind of checksumming helps to
> detect station/route disappearing or opening new ones.
>
> **) Warnings are generated about missing/wrong station/line colour,
> different colour/ref of route and route_master, holes in rails,  "Subway
> entrance is not a node", "Stop position in a 'platform' role in a route",
> "Platform in a 'stop' role in a route", "Stop is too far from tracks",
> "Stop position is not on tracks", "Tracks seem to go in the opposite
> direction to stops".
>
>
> Best regards,
> Alexey
>
> >
> > Today's Topics:
> >
> >   1. Re: Public transport validator+generator from Maps.Me
> >      (Noémie Lehuby)
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Fri, 31 May 2019 19:40:46 +0200
> > From: Noémie Lehuby <noemie.lehuby at zaclys.net>
> > To: talk-transit at openstreetmap.org
> > Subject: Re: [Talk-transit] Public transport validator+generator from
> >       Maps.Me
> > Message-ID: <3bd8e835-44b1-2d3d-304e-8a6d77160b85 at zaclys.net>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
> >
> > Hi Alexey,
> >
> > Is there somewhere a list of all the checks ?
> >
> > I've noticed that the Jungle Bus validation ruleset for JOSM and Osmose
> > <https://github.com/Jungle-Bus/transport_mapcss> already covers some of
> > these, and I think it would not be so hard to add most of these subway
> > rules to it.
> >
> > --
> > Noémie Lehuby
> > Jungle Bus - http://junglebus.io
> >
> > Le 31/05/2019 à 14:02, talk-transit-request at openstreetmap.org a écrit :
> >> Date: Thu, 30 May 2019 20:29:08 +0300
> >> From: Alexey Zakharenkov<eulenspiegel at list.ru>
> >> To: Tijmen Stam<mailinglists at iivq.net>
> >> Cc: Public transport/transit/shared taxi related topics
> >>      <talk-transit at openstreetmap.org>
> >> Subject: Re: [Talk-transit] Public transport validator+generator from
> >>      Maps.Me
> >> Message-ID:<F2F97AF2-C391-44B0-8D89-783778DEA51B at list.ru>
> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> >>
> >> Hello, all readers of «PT validator+generator from Maps.Me» thread!
> >>
> >> Thank you, I’ve not excepted to get so encouraging feedback in so short
> time. For some reason I haven’t got each reply to my mailbox, but I’ve got
> them in a «Talk-transit Digest». So let me answer here to all questions.
> >>
> >> 1) "Have you checked whatever some of validation rules can be included
> in the JOSM validator?"
> >>
> >> No, I haven’t. I’ll try to find time to check, but unlikely shortly.
> >>
> >> 2) "Can you expand it to modes besides subway?"
> >>
> >> The validator has two notional modes: underground (subway + light_rail
> + monorail + train considered to be rapid transport) and overground (bus,
> tram, trolleybus, … ). We run validator with ‘underground' option on a
> predefined list of rapid transit networks, which has a form of google-table
> document, link to which is given in repo’s readme. The results you can see
> athttp://osm-subway.maps.me  <http://osm-subway.maps.me/>  . At present
> we do not process overground transport in our application, but the google
> doc has an ‘Overground’ sheet with some cities.
> >>
> >> 3) "shouldhttp://osmz.ru/subways/  <http://osmz.ru/subways/>  be
> considered obsolete?»
> >>
> >> We run subway validation on a daily basis. If one would have monitored
> the subway state for some time, it would become evident that it changes
> every day, unfortunately towards degradation if let it go (regarding
> correctness, not fullness). Week-old validation results can be considered
> as outdated (some cities remain stable for months though). So, Ilya
> Zverev’s page is definitely obsolete. BTW, each generated validation HTML
> page has timestamp at the bottom.
> >>
> >> 4) "what are Maps.me<http://maps.me/>'s recommendations for subway
> tagging?»
> >>
> >> The author of the preprocessor, Ilya Zverev, wrote such recommendations
> athttps://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Metro_Mapping  <
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Metro_Mapping>  . They are not the
> ultimate truth, and the validator is actually more flexible and resistant
> to different mapping techniques as long as the mapped things allow to
> obtain consistent and unambiguous transport data snapshot. Anyways, the
> recommendations along with the tool have a conclusive strong side: they
> proved their effectiveness for production purposes at world-wide scale.
> >>
> >> 5) "For Belgium, I am missing the Charleroi lightrail …»
> >>
> >> The google doc is open for commenting and it is permanently improving!
> Please leave your suggestions to rapid transit network list in comments to
> appropriate cells, or to free cells underneath if a new network is
> suggested.
> >>
> >> 6) "Should an "Entrance" be used at aboveground stations?»
> >>
> >> Surely, entrances increase map accuracy and help navigation. Subway
> infrastructure may be fully or partially located on the ground (level=0) or
> even overground (level>0).
> >>
> >> 7) "I have not tested this but think that your preprocessor requires a
> >> "station" node. However, I don't see this necessity in PT v_2.»
> >>
> >> @Tijmen  The preprocessor requires «station» object in its broad sense:
> railway=station/halt, highway=bus_stop/tram_stop. All other elements
> (platforms, stop_positions, entrances) are optional, but not a station.
> >>
> >>
> >> @Jason  I’ve raised Paris metro and Paris RER from ruins in two weeks.
> I estimate New York Subway to be in not much more worse state. Efforts of
> already involved mappers are not sufficient to quickly put all subways in
> order.
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >> Alexey
> >>
> >>
> >>> 29 мая 2019 г., в 22:44, Tijmen Stam<mailinglists at iivq.net>
> написал(а):
> >>>
> >>> On 29-05-19 17:35, Alexey Zakharenkov via Talk-transit wrote:
> >>>> Hello everybody!
> >>>> I'm a part of team who worries about public transport status in OSM
> database, especially rapid transit transport. I want to represent a public
> transport validator+generator that somebody might find a useful facility.
> It's open source:
> >>>> https://github.com/mapsme/subways
> >>>> Given a list of transport networks it generates output suitable not
> only for rendering PT routes but also for routing. Meanwhile it finds
> errors like gaps in rail/road sequence in a route, absent/doubling station
> at a stop, etc. We run the validator daily and publish the results at
> >>>> http://osm-subway.maps.me
> >>>> The page shows that even large and important subway systems (like New
> York Subway) in OSM DB are currently corrupted and therefore unusable for
> practical purposes. Difficulties occur not only due to negligent mapping
> but also due to misalignment how to map PT. I call you, who is interested
> in PT, to use this instrument, evaluate it and give feedback. We're ready
> to improve this tool for the community sake and take into account
> worthwhile suggestions.
> >>>> Thank you for your attention.
> >>>> I'm ready to answer any questions.
> >>> Thank you, very useful!
> >>>
> >>> I have not tested this but think that your preprocessor requires a
> "station" node. However, I don't see this necessity in PT v_2.
> >>>
> >>> For Belgium, I am missing the Charleroi lightrail (Metro Leger) system
> (and possibly Antwerps "premetro" system, but that is a mixture of tram and
> subway.
> >>> For Austria, I am missing the Dorfbahn Serfaus system.
> >>>
> >>> Then a question about Rotterdam: Should an "Entrance" be used at
> aboveground stations? E.g. Maassluis west (converted from train station /
> to be opened:
> >>> https://www.google.nl/maps/place/Maassluis/@51.9262933,4.2356667,214m
> >>> Where should the entrance be placed?
> > -------------- next part --------------
> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> > URL: <
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-transit/attachments/20190531/652f99a4/attachment-0001.html
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Subject: Digest Footer
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Talk-transit mailing list
> > Talk-transit at openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > End of Talk-transit Digest, Vol 92, Issue 1
> > *******************************************
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-transit mailing list
> Talk-transit at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-transit/attachments/20190611/7d62079d/attachment-0001.html>