Proposal:Route duration
An implementation Key:duration exists.
| route_duration | |
|---|---|
| Proposal status: | Abandoned (inactive) |
| Proposed by: | Dutch |
| Tagging: | route_duration=hh:mm |
| Applies to: | linear |
| Definition: | Time duration for a defined route, i.e. ferry crossings, bus-routes, etc. Value in the key could be usefull for routing programs as well |
| Statistics: |
|
| Rendered as: | small text under the line of the route, stating the duration for the route as listed in schedules. |
| Draft started: | |
| Proposed on: | 2007-11-14 |
| RFC start: | 2007-11-14 |
Description
Describes the time duration for a route defined by the route key. I.E: ferry crossings, long distance bus routes, etc.
Tags
Key applies to a defined route, i.e. a ferry line defined with <k="route" v=ferry"/>
<tag k="route_duration" v="01:55"/>
Rendering
Rendered in small text underneath the route line.
Opinion
The value in the key, should be the duration given in the schedule for the route involved. This way the value can also be used by routing programs, when calculating the fastest route, besides being rendered on the map for informational purposes.
- Is there any reason why you aren't just using duration=*, without the route_? This could also be used for phyical things like aerialways. -- Fröstel 12:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
duration as key name would invite disambuiguity in the usage, imho. There is no reason why you couldn't use route_duration on a physical thing like an aerialway (cablecars), but again imho, it would be better to define a route as well.
The way I envision the tag used is forinstance on a busroute which could have the routeduration between stops listed. Ferry routes showing the time taken for the crossing, etc. If you want to use it on a physicial item like the cablecars defined by aerialways keys, I'd say go ahead. But if a cablecar goes to more than stop, then it might be better to define the physical cablecarline with aerialway, and use an appropriate route tag for the segments between each stop. Then use the route_duration tag to define the time between each stop. That way we keep the physical vs not-physical division on the tags, making it far more logical to maintain and remember. Dutch 17:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- I mildly, though only mildly, prefer using just duration as I like tags to be general purpose where possible. Is not ambiguity resolved by the thing it tags? MikeCollinson 18:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Should we agree on a common time-format like hh:mm ?
I'm using hh:mm at the moment, since that generally is universally understod. Dutch 17:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- I suggest that any valid ISO 8601 expression should be mandated for all OSM tag involving dates and time. hh:mm is certainly supported. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601 MikeCollinson 18:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- We should just stick with one format and hh:mm seems good. -- Ulfl 22:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Fully agree with Mike, ISO8601 everywhere. --Colin Marquardt 17:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- does this need to be expanded to dd:hh:mm? i'm sure there are some boat journeys that are many days? e.g. across the Atlantic, Pacific or Indian ocean? or is a large number of hours, say 48 instead of two days, be ok? Myfanwy 23:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- So make the units a part of the tag. "12h 34m" or "1d 4h" - at least that way nobody gets confused whether it's hour:min or min:sec (or even day:hour which doesn't normally use the : separator) Ojw 08:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- ISO8601 also handles this: wikipedia:ISO_8601#Time_intervals --Colin Marquardt 11:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- So make the units a part of the tag. "12h 34m" or "1d 4h" - at least that way nobody gets confused whether it's hour:min or min:sec (or even day:hour which doesn't normally use the : separator) Ojw 08:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- does this need to be expanded to dd:hh:mm? i'm sure there are some boat journeys that are many days? e.g. across the Atlantic, Pacific or Indian ocean? or is a large number of hours, say 48 instead of two days, be ok? Myfanwy 23:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- There needs to be an option to give two times for a way, depending on the direction. A 20 minute downhill bike route could take several hours the other direction... --Ckruetze 13:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- I think this feature is good for means of transport that take constant time to get from one point to another one (e.g. bus, plane, train). This feature is not useful for bikers, because duration depends on your skills. If you ride a horse you're probably as fast as a bicycle uphill, but downhill the bike is faster. Then the duration of a route depends among other things on power, mass, inclination and distance. --MatMac 02:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps change route_duration to route:duration because that standard of adding parameters to a key is often used. It also allows for easy adding of more parameters like route:interval or route:interval:between etc. --Lambertus 10:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)