I just came upon Edmonton Transit Service (ETS) GTFS data through the city’s open data portal (https://data.edmonton.ca/Transit/ETS-Bus-Schedule-GTFS-Data-Feed-Trips/ctwr-tvrd/about_data). Data is licensed OGL-Edmonton, which is compatible with ODbL since 2022. Looking to have a PTNA listing for the network.
Thanks for asking.
No problem, I can do that.
It’ll be available as CA-AB-ETS for GTFS and PTNA report
For the report:
- what would be an appropriate search area?
- Relation: Edmonton (2564500) | OpenStreetMap
- Relation: Greater Edmonton (18286735) | OpenStreetMap
- for route-relations to be found it is sufficient that at least a single node of the member ways or platforms/stop_positions is located in the search area. route_master and sister/brother routes (in same route_master) will then be found as well
- where could PTNA find the CSV list of existing routes for the analysis report?
- suggestion: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Edmonton_Transit_Service/Analysis/PTNA/ETS_Routes
- this list can be created using GTFS and will be maintained by local mappers for the ‘target’ - ‘actual’ comparison (“exists in reality” versus “exists in OSM”)
1 Like
The most suitable relation is for the Greater Edmonton (Edmonton Metropolitan Region or EMR) since there are two routes that go beyond city limits (i.e. 560 and 747). Well, ETS’s GTFS route data also includes routes from several other transit agencies in the EMR, namely Beaumont Transit, FST (Fort Sask Transit), Spruce Grove Transit, StAT (St. Albert Transit), and Strathcona County Transit. so those must be clearly highlighted in the analysis file (now done).
Here’s the ZIP file for ETS’s GTFS data: https://gtfs.edmonton.ca/TMGTFSRealTimeWebService/GTFS/gtfs.zip.
Thanks!
Its all done and dusted.
The Overpass analysis using Greater Edmonton/EMR relation doesn’t work, so it must be done using these relations
- Edmonton
- Beaumont
- Parkland County
- St. Albert
- Sherwood Park
- Spruce Grove
- Strathcona County
There’s a bug in Overpass-Turbo that prevents the relation fromm being shown.
https://overpass-turbo.eu/map.html?...
@ToniE As for the CSV, I just fixed the actual tagged ref for the mapped routes matched to routes 001-056 (the associated mapped relations are tagged with ref=* values without the leading zeroes, as those are what appears on the actual signage on bus stops and the electronic displays). I’m also noticing issues such as routes with two route master relations, which seems to be a bug.
Yes, either there is actually a second route_master
Just fixed those relations in question. Most of the issues seems to be a result of creating a route master relation for a newly mapped or remapped route by duplicating route master relations and not replacing the tagged ref=. All good now.
For the routes with variations tagged with suffixed numbers, I have added them on the CSV. Those are for these routes:
- 1 (variant via Gold Bar numbered 1A, variant via Terrace Heights numbered 1B)
- 2 (overnight variant numbered 2-Owl, under same route master relation)
- 9 (overnight variant numbered 9-Owl, under same route master relation)
- 109 (clockwise and counterclockwise variants numbered 109A and 109B)
- 918 (clockwise and counterclockwise variants numbered 918A and 918B)
2 Likes
Out of curiosity, why do some some routes show up in coloured boxes on the PTNA route summery, and other don’t?
Do you have a link for me?
Eg. Routes 518 and 519.
The St Albert and Sherwood Park routes are about half and half too.
The colour of the navigation numbers just below PTNA - CA-AB-ETS are defined by the colour tag of the first relation in the section for the ref. This relation is usually the route_master relation
1 Like