Ik heb er een gewoonte van gemaakt om bij het editen in JOSM te kijken of ik ook meteen wat waarschuwingen van de validatieresultaten kan oplossen. De volgende melding komt als er busroutes zijn gedownload:

Routeschema is niet gespecificeerd. Voeg toe public_transport:version (2=public_transport; 1=legacy)

Om te testen heb ik meerdere plekken van het land bekeken, overal krijg ik deze melding. Van één plek heb ik de tags gecontroleerd. De vereiste tag (public_transport:version=2) staat hier wel in de relatie (route) van de buslijn. Wat correct is volgens

Wat gaat er mis?

Alles wat ik er van weet is dat met PTV=2 er een route_master moet bestaan en de bus route daaraan gekoppeld is. PTV=2 heeft voordelen zoals sorteren, checken of bushaltes aan de goede kant staan, niet te ver van de route en meer. Zie de waarschuwing veel. Corrigeer een weg, een node, what not, die een route link heeft en het is feest als de tag ontbreekt, dus dan zoek ik of er een master is en zo niet, dan tag ik PTV=1

NB: Recent werd er PTV=3 ergens genoemd maar geen idee wat dat moet zijn. Niet in Wiki gevonden.

public_transport:version = 2 aka PTv2 is related to an approved version of a proposal on how to tag public transport stuff.

Approved Feature Public Transport (approved Version 625726)

PTNA is a tool which checks public transport relations, it is specialized on PTv2.
The Netherlands are currently not covered by PTNA, but adding some ‘network’ specific analysis tasks is quite easy (for me).
If GTFS data is freely (license considerations) available, PTNA can also provide an analysis of that.

It has become quite silent on some new approaches on how to map PT. I’m not aware of a proposal which I would consider as a successor of PTv2: called PTv3.

Did remember to have seen it during a new key correction and checking back in Taginfo PTV=3 short for public_transport:version=3 tag (PTv3?) has had a few thousand uses

Sveden shows and dense group of usage near Uppsala and a German route uses it on it’s stops as far as Europe is concerned

The latest discussion was in 2020:

But is that PTV3 ?
I doubt it

1 Like

Waarom geeft JOSM een waarschuwing / Why is there a warning in JOSM?

I’ve sent a CS comment to one of the mappers in Uppsala asking for the source of the “3”.
There are 3 routes in Germany, 2 of them by a fellow mapper in my vicinity: tagged as route=bus_route_testing.

IIRC, public_transport:version was never defined to be tagged on Nodes or Ways though.

JOSM promotes PTv2, one of the maintainers is the author of the plugin ‘pt_assistant’?

See also:
Proposed features/Refined Public Transport - OpenStreetMap Wiki

and scroll down to:
Should I use public_transport:version=3?
Please don’t. A route is either correct or not, and public transport schema versions are not the same as software versions. The tag was invented because PTv2 was not accepted by everybody. This schema replaces (by incorporating) both of these, so the tag will be obsolete.

As far as I know public_transport:version is the only tag ever introduced by JOSM (#9545 (Version tag for public transport relations) – JOSM).
It is needed as PTv1 and PTv2 have different rules for roles and for connectivity and we need to have a tag to differentiate between the two to auto-insert roles, display the correct connectivity in relation editor and display appropriate validator warnings.

JOSM core does not promote one in favor of the other but supports both PTv1 and PTv2. :sunglasses:

Can certainly say when, i think it is the sorting function, the pt plugin proposes to turn the route into a PTv2 tagged version.

Your’re right again. I do favour PTv2 as this one allows a set of QA tasks. PTv1 is good enough to paint some lines on a pt map and attach labels to it, that’s all.

He said that they decided to use PTv2 but w/o public_transport=* at stops/platforms and to use only hw=bus_stop next to the street (not as node on the street) and to have ways sorted before stops in the member ist.

So not really same as proposed by Zverik in his proposal - called by some people PTv3 (not by himself though).

Excluding the swapped sequence of ways and stops, I’d call the Swedish version a PTv2 with backward compatibility with well known tags (making use of hw=bus_stop)

I saw this for a single route relation only, maybe that was an exception to: stops before ways

Was that right reading somewhere in that proposal to only map the bus stops? That would be up into several people’s argument of letting navigators decide how to drive from stop 99 to stop 100 as these route relations of thousands of members seriously interfere with rendering and refreshing. Flixbus routes to name one who’s got hundreds if not thousands across Europe, and every time one does something to the tiniest street section with a Flixbus role attached and something anywhere start to finish is off, you get tagged with 99 out of 100 there being a gap somewhere in the 2000 mile route somewhere between Hannover and Brindisi.

No, PTv2 says: ways are “mandatory”, stop_positions and platforms are “recommended if available”:
2nd table in this section

So, PTv2 does for instance not cover the new “FLEX” system here, where there are 100 Stops or so. You call a mini bus which picks you up at one stop and takes you to your destination stop using the shortest path (except if others want to partly join the ride and get on or drop off in between) - the path is dynamically calculated, depending on demand - there is no fixed way. It has become very popular here and the test phase and area will definitely be extended.

Absolutely true: new gaps (caused by iD, StreetComplete, JOSM, … users and SW) pop up every day @PTNA

Not having ways in route relations will cause “no rendering on maps except the stops”. Renderers which want to show the route on a map would have to start a routing engine and the calculated route could be different from the one used in reality. On the other hand: the bus driver should know the route and the passengers do not have to care about the route (except for sight seeing and safety, …).

What would be a PT map w/o the route being shown? Equivalent to Carto?

Please, do not mix JOSM core and plugins. Yes, pt_assistant is for PTv2 but plain JOSM supports both.