PTNA: new feature - GTFS / OSM comparison

[ToniE (Toni Erdmann)]

@skyper

motorway_link as the cross over is at Node: 1699454522 | OpenStreetMap

Also depends on where the traffic sign “end of motorway” is.

[wolfy1339]

@ToniE

Would you consider this special report for bus 43E in Québec as a false-positive message?

In this case, yes the message is a false-positive.

@skyper

From across the “big lake” I would say these listed ways should be trunk_link instead of motorway_link as the cross over is at Node: 1699454522 | OpenStreetMap . Therefore the message seems correct but let’s wait and see what the locals say.

The listed ways are indeed trunk_link up to the Node: 1699454522 | OpenStreetMap where the motorway_link joins up.
The message is correct though, as autoroute can be a motorway or trunk depending on if it is a dual-carriageway

@ToniE

Also depends on where the traffic sign “end of motorway” is.

There isn’t such a thing here.
As the 2 link roads merge together, the higher classification one takes precedence.

[ToniE (Toni Erdmann)]

@wolfy1339

@ToniE

Would you consider this special report for bus 43E in Québec as a false-positive message?

In this case, yes the message is a false-positive.

Yes, the code should be changed then.

[ToniE (Toni Erdmann)]

I disables this type of check completely for CA-QC-STLévis. Can’t find a quick solution at the moment w/o causing false-positives in other analysis reports.