PTv2 - Tagging a bus route that changes number halfway through journey

Hello all, I’m updating old legacy PTv1 bus routes in my area to PTv2, deleting ones that no longer exist, and tracing new ones. Generally I’ve been following recommendations to create a route for each direction and group them together in a route_master superrelation. For examples of my work to date see bus 40 and bus Y8.

My region of interest is between Stroud and Bath in the UK. I have encountered an interesting edge case. How would you map this service route? https://tiscon-maps-stagecoachbus.s3.amazonaws.com/Timetables/West/2021/69_620_Stroud_17_January_2021.V2.pdf

It starts as bus 620 from Bath to Old Sodbury, then changes number to bus 69 from Old Sodbury to Stroud, but if you look at the timetable it’s always the same physical vehicle operating a complete through-service.

Do I map it as two separate numbers? That doesn’t feel right. How would you go about this?

1 Like

We have the same here here in Munich, DE.

They’ve been mapped as independent route_master/route_relations.
I see the bus number (= ‘ref’) as the main key for that.
And that bus number is visible for the passengers. In ‘Bath’ you do not use the bus ‘620;69’ or bus “620/69” or so, you just see the “620”.
The final stop/platform of the “620” must not have ‘role’=“stop_exit_only”/“platform_entry_only” then, similar for first stop/platform of the “69”.

But what does the (PDF) timetable state here?

See also, how PTNA (for GB) organises the overview tables.

1 Like

Interlining happens on rail as well, especially Japan. It’s a unsolved question, or never attempted before. How about a superroute=bus , relating route=bus + ref=620 , and route=bus + ref=Y8 , with different from= + to= ?

I’ve added these before as a single combined route_master, with a different route relation for each number and direction, and some explanatory notes. For example Relation: ‪Metro 14/37‬ (‪8417945‬) | OpenStreetMap in Los Angeles, USA. But I’m not sure that’s a very robust solution, just what I thought sort of made sense at the time

1 Like

I’ve moved this into “tagging help and support”, since it’s mostly a tagging question. Hope that’s OK…

(all previous links will still work)

1 Like

The PDF timetable states

“∇ These buses are guaranteed to connect, with through fares available”

The ∇ symbol is applied to about 60% of the timetable, and it means it’s the same bus throughout.

1 Like

That’d be my go-to.
The fact that it’s the same vehicle operating both is only a fact due to the scheduling which may change at any time and isn’t included in OSM anyhow.

For what it’s worth, GTFS can model such so-called “stay-seated” transfers, and at least one router I know of (motis/nigiri) accounts for that: GitHub - motis-project/nigiri: Next Generation Routing

So I don’t think it’s an issue to tag the service as two routes.

3 Likes

We have these too and I generally keep them as separate numbers sice they’re technically separate services and staying in the same bus isn’t always guaranteed (at best depending on the day but sometimes throughout).

1 Like