[RFC] Feature Proposal - GTFS Tagging standard

[Patchi]

@spaanse

@Patchi

Maybe I’m wrong but how can we have multiple networks on one PT route relation?

GTFS feeds do not contain information about a single line, it contains information about all public transport of a region and/or mode of transport and/or operator.
For example, you might have a GTFS feed for all ICE trains in Germany and feeds for local transport in each municipality/bundesland.

I talked about a (single) OSM public transport relation according to the PTv2 and in particular the definition of the route relation:

Key	Value	Comment	Recommendation
network	Local / regional network	Name of the network the route belongs to.	recommended if no route_master=* exists, else optional

one should note name of the network is strictly singular.

@spaanse

A route can be part of multiple GTFS feeds, for example when it crosses a border between regions.
It can happen that one is not more authoritative than another.
For example, the train between Hamburg and Kopenhagen is jointly operated by DB and DSB.

This doesn’t mean necessary that you will have one single OSM route relation [for one route with mutiple GTFS feeds]. I find it much easier to put each combination route + network into one relation. If you maintain only one network it is far more easy (no need to take the other network(s) into account). Each variant (combination route + network) may have different attributes and not only different GTFS attributes. And as the public transport in OSM is one of the most complex construct, I find it difficult to make it more complex by trying to join a route with multiple feeds into one single relation.

For all objects that are relations (route, route_master and stop_area as well) you can duplicate these to put it onto another network if there is a shared route. I know it generates somehow duplicates (but only from the route perspective) and as written previously it is probably easier to maintain.

As written before I’m with you for all OSM objects that are not relations but for the relations I disagree.

[skyper]

@spaanse

Proposal:

• Reinstate gtfs:feed
• Define gtfs:feed + non-subkeyed GTFS tags as the authoritative feed for this feature
• Use gtfs:[tag]:[feed_code] for all other GTFS objects that correspond to this object, even if slightly different.

Wow, that is a turnaround.
Problem now, as the previous proposal was accepted, we need another proposal to reinstate gtfs:feed and define it and the non-subkeyed GTFS tags as the authoritative feed.
As I have only little time for OSM atm, I would appreciate if someone else could step up with this new proposal. Many thanks in advance.