Routes with slightly different ref tags in route_master relation

Trying to figure out whether this is an issue with Osmose or not. There’s a route_master relation in South Australia for the 863 route, that contains 6 route relations. Two of these also have ref=863 (one for reach direction), and then there’s two more directional sets for refs 863F and T863, which are limited stop/express variations of the same route.

Osmose flags this as an issue because the ref doesn’t match, which is correct, however I’m unsure as to which of these would be correct:

  • Osmose is incorrect and the ref= tagging is valid
  • The ref tag on the route_master should include all 3 refs (ref=863;863F;T863)
  • The route_master should be split into three, one for each ref=

Can’t find any answer from looking here and on the wiki, not sure if it’s ever been a problem before. I can understand Osmose having an issue, however I’m unsure whether having the multiple values in the ref tag is valid since I’ve generally seen consensus for ref:[entity]= when multiple references exist.

I consider #2 and #3 as valid solutions.

There are many route_master train relations in the US which are tagged/mapped according to #2.

PTNA also supports #2

This is used when the same route has two different ‘ref’ in two different ‘network’

ref=603/50 and ref:MVV=603 and ref:VLK=50

BTW: if the “colour” is different, I’d prefer separate route_masters

Bus 863

1 Like

That definitely makes sense, I might do a bit of digging to see how Osmose validates it, if it sees that as valid then that’s the answer for sure.

GTFS of AU-SA-Adelaide-Metro defines 3 different “GTFS routes” (equivalent to OSM route_master) - that would suggest tagging/mapping according to #3

1 Like

Definitely makes sense, they’re a bit odd with how they’re handled locally. Thanks for the help!

1 Like