Following Australia’s example (Public Transport Route Names), I think the Canadian mapping guidelines on the wiki should state the controversial PTv2 recommended route naming scheme [vehicle type] [number]: [from] → [to] is often not observed in Canada, considering that naming scheme is not being used all across most mapped transit networks across Canada, instead deferring to the preferred naming used by the operators. Well, I have previously adopted a similar naming scheme when adding/updating bus routes in Edmonton (basically same as the PTv2 recommendation, but with ETS replacing [vehicle type]), but have since abandoned it over the years, naming bus routes by how ETS names them (would consider attaching “Route” before the number on the name, as how ETS and locals refers to them).
So far, one major transit network I have seen the PTv2 recommendation being applied to all routes is the Winnipeg Transit network.
Would wait for input from other Canadian mappers before considering that. Well then, would welcome the changes.
As for the Winnipeg Transit network, it had just undergone a major network redesign in June, and last 2024 had undergone major remapping (mostly conversion of routes to PTv2 scheme) following an import of compatibly-licensed GTFS data from Winnipeg Transit.
I’m also having some thoughts about the [route number] [destination] naming scheme for individual bus route variations that I encountered across BC – both on the TransLink network in Metro Vancouver and BC Transit-managed transit systems elsewhere – and is also making inroads into Calgary Transit routes. Weeks ago, I just updated the names on individual routes of BC Transit-managed systems (in particular Kelowna and Chilliwack) so to use the proper name of the route instead of the destination.
… is gobbledygook nonsense in the context of Calgary. Calgary Transit routes have names; they are not simply referred to by route number or destination. (Sometimes the destination is also the name, but not always.)
I noticed a few mappers ‘updated’ many Calgary Transit bus routes to PTv2 almost a year ago, and thankfully they didn’t follow the nomenclature above, choosing instead to tag them as
name=<route number><route name>
But even that seems ‘wrong’ to me. The name of the e.g. number 13 bus route is ‘Altadore’, not ‘13 Altadore’. Prefacing the name with the route number seems entirely pointless and superfluous; route numbers are already tagged with ref=*!
The [route number/code] [route name] is quite a common naming scheme for bus routes for several transit systems south of the border (San Francisco’s Muni bus and streetcar/LRT lines comes up as prime example), but it was also employed here in Canada, as with TTC, STM and BC Transit, just to give a few.
So for the case for Calgary Transit, [route number] [route name] may not necessarily be wrong (it may provide some disambiguation should there be routes sharing the same name), but you argue against it because the route name only seems to be the preferred way CT documentation refers to their routes in addition to their number.
Moreso I’m saying name=* is for the name, ref=* is for the route number, and I don’t know why someone decided to duplicate the route number in both name=* and ref=*. name=<route number> <route name> works just fine, it just seems like a completely unnecessary duplication of the number.
The "name=<...> <from> → <to>" nomenclature works where the route doesn’t have a name; for instance for Edmonton, ETS (as far as I know; I admittedly don’t go to Edmonton all that often and have rarely used their transit system) doesn’t have names for their bus routes, they just refer to a number, supplemented with origin and destination. If you stand at an ETS bus stop the placard on the signpost will show a route number and final destination. The bus that shows up will have the number and final destination on the signage. By comparison a Calgary Transit bus stop will prominently feature the route number, with the route name written under it in small print; the bus that shows up will have the number and the name on the signage.
E.g. if I’m in Edmonton and want to take the number 2 ETS bus from Commonwealth Stadium to a bar downtown the bus stop signage will show "2 West Edmonton Mall", because West Ed is the final destination of the route. If I’m in Calgary and want to take a number 19 bus from McMahon Stadium to a bar at the University District, that bus stop signage will show "19 16 Avenue North", even though it’s actually going AWAY from 16th Avenue. If I wanted to take the number 19 bus going in the opposite direction that other bus stop will ALSO read "19 16 Avenue North", because the name of the route is “16 Avenue North”.
Ultimately I vehemently agree with your original post, that the PTv2 naming scheme often not observed in Canada, and in point of fact it shouldn’t be observed in cities where the transit routes have names.
Correct, ETS bus route names are just numbers, with a few special suffixes. In POSIX extended regular expression syntax they are: [1-9][0-9]{0,2}(A|B|X|-Owl)?
(That is to say: one non-zero digit, followed by zero, one, or two digits, possibly followed by one ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘X’, or ‘-Owl’.)
The LRT lines have not very meaningful non-numeric names.
The destination is not part of any bus or LRT route name - it is only used with the route name on vehicles and stops to indicate the direction of travel.
These are also applicable to routes in surrounding transit systems (StAT, Strathcona County Transit, Beaumont)
True also for the routes in the mentioned local networks, but not Fort Sask Transit (FST). Its commuter service (contracted to Strathcona County Transit) has a proper name (“Dow Centennial-Sherwood Park Express”, though that flips to “Sherwood Park-Dow Centennial Express” once the bus reaches Sherwood for the trip to Fort Sask) and the local routes (two loop routes running slightly different routings around Fort Sask) are named FST Local though these don’t appear on signage nor on the buses’ headsigns.
That’s been my admittedly limited experience with ETS as well. Even so, I don’t really see a need for backfilling one of these constructed names in name=*. Seems like mapping for the editor to me.
Well, as for ETS bus routes, I plunged in and replaced most PTv2-based names with “Route [number]” (as how ETS and locals call them) on both route and route master relations. Some exceptions here are for rapid routes with Super Express designator instead of express (i.e. routes 31 and 900X); I appended them after the number.
Adding up, St. Albert Transit (StAT) also names routes similarly to Calgary (primarily destination that is not any of its two transit centres), but the electronic displays on the bus is just like with ETS buses. Currently routes are mostly named "[number] [name]”, would migrate them to the bare name.
Looking outside Edmonton and Calgary areas, Red Deer Transit also similarly names routes (e.g. Red Deer route 1 is the Gaetz Avenue Rapid). Roam (the transit system in Banff-Canmore-Lake Louise) names routes too but with the route number as integral part.