Talk:Proposed features/Differentiation for routes of public transport

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

prefix namespace

I like the new proposal. but did you need to prefix all key with a namespace ? for exemple score=national on a route relation is not enought ? Marc CH 26 octobre 2017

Thanks for removing the prefix for scope. The same should be done for stopping_pattern and service_period ? Marc CH (talk) 18:43, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

My 0.02€

I understand the issues raised by the proposal, and I agree with the fact that additional tags should be used. However, I have a few remarks and suggestions to make.

  • As the previous comment says, I don't see the need of prefixing scope by route. The tag scope=* looks sufficient to me. Another concern is about the 'porosity' between scope classes... but this is more detail.
I agree with these comments and you are right, scope=* should be enough. There are only 20 occurrences up to now: tagInfo scope
  • I dislike the tag public_transport:stops=*. First, its key does not really correspond to what it aims to mean; and second, the proposed values are insufficient to express every line. (I was, in particular, thinking about a bus shuttle between an airport and a city, which stops at several points in the city). However, I see the precision you would like to make. I then suggest the following: stop_frequency=*, with values: direct (no intermediate stops at all), semi-direct (few stops along the way), main_stops, and all_stops. Maybe this needs refinement in parts on the route... but I don't see how this can be set into the current public transport scheme.
I understand your concerns regarding the key name and the values and I like the idea of stop_frequency=*, however your two first values does not really correspond to the key-tag either. What do you think about stopping_pattern=* with non_stop, main_stops, limited and all_stops?
I thought of public_transport:service_period=* to avoid confusion because service=* is currently used similar to the proposed public_transport:type=* (mostly for railways). And I didn't want to propose the same syntax as opening_hours, because timetables are simply to complex to be described in OSM and does not belong there either. There are other formats as for example GTFS to combine map and timetable data (see osm2gtfs for a work in progress). I proposed public_transport:service_period=* mainly to differentiate only-night form regular day transportation services.

--Bibi6 (talk) 20:43, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

--Ialokim (talk) 15:08, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Route vs Route_master

Many properties described in this proposal are about the public transport line. They should therefore be added to the parent route_master object instead of the many route relations objects.

--Singing-Poppy (talk) 16:55, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree for some cases, for example scope=* and public_transport:type=*, but there are indeed lines which have express and normal services or lines with different night services too (see my answer to your other thoughts). It should be possible to add these tags proposed here to type=route and/or type=route_master.
--Ialokim (talk) 22:31, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
The word route_master does not appear in the page. If your proposal adds tags that can be set on route and/or route_master, you should write that in your proposal. Singing-Poppy (talk) 15:50, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
I've now adapted the proposal page to include your concerns, please check it. --Ialokim (talk) 18:08, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Good for me, thanks ! Singing-Poppy (talk) 18:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

More precise tagging

Singing-Poppy (talk) 16:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC) :

Some values are still quite white and black

public_transport:type=school is too vague : if I'm not a student, can I use this line ?

Here is an alternative proposal (already listed in the route_master page)

In this case, wouldn't it be better to have one type=route_master with ref=4 and four children:


We may need the same distinction with the public_transport:type=on_demand lines :

In this case, it would be:

And this applied also for

  • by_night = yes/only
  • tourism = yes/only
Similarly for these cases.
I don't like these values you proposed because they aren't very clear (I'm not sure if everybody understands that yes is not only if they are not very familiar with this tagging method?)
--Ialokim (talk) 22:31, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
I must agree on that : the yes vs only distinction is not very clear. But still clearer that only public_transport:type=on_demand (or night, or tourism, etc)... -- Singing-Poppy (talk) 16:02, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Plus : I think the route_master should always be tagged, even if only some routes are concerned. If a OSM data user want to make gather the lines that have on_demand services (or school, or night, etc), they should not have to get the OSM routes and do some magic to group them and guess how many lines are concerned. -- Singing-Poppy (talk) 16:02, 12 November 2017 (UTC)


Why not

  • public_transport:type=on_demand
  • on_demand = partial / only

Singing-Poppy (talk) 16:02, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I've now adapted the proposal page to include your ideas, please check it. --Ialokim (talk) 18:08, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Why not adding a few more examples (Mobicaps 4, R61 and F8) in your example section ?
Done :) --Ialokim (talk) 03:15, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Singing-Poppy (talk) 19:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)