@François2 yes fixed, thanks for the fast modification :)

Great stuff, I love this also!

I enhanced Munich’s Stachus a bit.

BTW: it seems that conveying=no on highway=steps is rendered wrongly: looks like conveying=yes

Also ich habe mit Jitsi kein Problem auf Firefox.

Dito hier.

Thanks Frederik for sharing this.

And sometimes it is good to know where old trees are located, before planning and building/fixing a road.

Now constructions are paused and they have to spend another € 200k to shift the road for a 300 year old tree, because no one did a survey before.

osm.org/node/7680995750

Thanks for the wikidata, I will use that - it’s shorter and more precise. Actually, one version of my filter retrieved also data from “City of Campbelltown” south-east of Sydney, I had to exclude that by its wikidata != ‘…’.

I assume you already noticed osm.wiki/Public_transport_in_Adelaide/Analysis/Adelaide_Metro_Routes , an OSM wiki page where you and other local mappers can play around with the structure and keep it up-to-date over time.

Hi Paul,

no, I haven’t seen any tools yet which might help converting GTFS into an OSM relation.

The GTFS data of Adelaide Metro provides shape data which helps a lot finding the route. The shape and stop information can be downloaded as GPX file and then be used in JSOM to “work” along the route.

Kindly see here for an example (bus 190) (button: bottom left side). There is much more information on this trip/variant on this page though.

For the PTNA analysis, you can down load the CSV list of all existing routes here

In the PTNA analysis (example bus 190 you will later on find links called “PTNA” for each relation which leads to a page (example bus 190 which looks very similar to the GTFS analysis of a trip, but then based on OSM data rather than on GTFS data.

The PTNA analysis is currently limited to “City of Adelaide” only, I will extend the search area later.

Br Toni

“area[boundary=administrative][admin_level=6][name~’(Dachau|München|Ebersberg|Erding|Starnberg|Freising|Tölz|Wolfratshausen|Fürstenfeldbruck)’]”

or

“area[boundary=administrative][wikidata~’^(Q12094|Q12079|Q12746|Q12713|Q12697|Q11922|Q74768|Q347)$’]”

Thanks for the link. Will be available at PTNA this evening (CEST). We have to take care of the licensing and proper attribution though.

For the “actual” analysis, I would like to know which of the 19 Local Government Areas (LGAs) around Adelaide are covered by Adelaide Metro, i.e. which “admin_level=6” boundary relations to include into the overpass-api query for the downlad of the data.

Something like this here

or

I’ve seen this list on Wikipedia (german version)

Adelaide Hills Council
City of Adelaide
City of Burnside
City of Campbelltown
City of Charles Sturt
City of Holdfast Bay
City of Marion
City of Mitcham
City of Norwood, Payneham & St Peters
City of Onkaparinga
City of Playford
City of Port Adelaide Enfield
City of Prospect
City of Salisbury
City of Tea Tree Gully
City of Unley
City of West Torrens
Town of Gawler
Town of Walkerville

Hi Paul,

I could help by adding “Adelaide Bus Routes” to the PTNA tool (https://ptna.openstreetmap.de) so you can get an overview of what is already mapped and secondly compare it with what exists in reality (target-actual analysis). Best source of what exists in reality would having GTFS data.

Br Toni

… you forgot to mention that he wasn’t able to bring the fish home. A shark attacked him and nothing left of the marlin when he arrived home.

Author Ernest Hemmingway.

Nevertheless, I will report this entry as spam.

Hallo Andreas,

gut gemacht. Ich weiß, dass du dort sehr aktiv bist: Barfußwanderungen, Kanu, …

VG Toni

Agreed.

But it seems quite difficult for the renderer: skipping the icon for “highway=bus_stop” if “public_transport=platform” is present and adding the icon for that object instead.

PTv2 does not deprecate “highway=bus_stop” though.

As it says under: osm.wiki/Tag:highway%3Dbus_stop

“The highway=bus_stop tag is widely used on a node off to one side of the highway way …”

“Widely used” and there is no final consensus on where to actually put the information “highway=bus_stop” - I also prefer “off to one side of the highway”.

The stop “Confederation Center” is mapped according to the so called PTv2 (public transport version 2) tagging scheme. * The node on the highway is tagged as “public_transport=stop_position” * The area off to one side of the highway is tagged as “public_transport=platform” (can also be a node or line though)

This way, PTv2 does not require “highway=bus_stop” bus most (PTv2-)mappers use it because it lets the icon appear on the map - simply spoken by a PTv2-mapper and I can already hear “Objection!”.

Suggestion: leave it as it is.

Hallo Harald,

ja, das stimmt schon, mit dem ‘nach oben gehen”, wenn es sich um Gebäude oder das Modell von (z.B.) München als mittelalterliche Stadt handelt.

Bei der Talsperre und dem Fluss bietet es sich doch an, “nach unten” zu gehen, denn der Wasserspiegel stellt ja jeweils den tiefsten (sichbaren und somit “fühlbaren”) Punkt der Umgebung dar.

Viele Grüße, Toni

Hallo Harald,

sieht klasse aus.

Kann man daraus irgenwas Richtung “taktiles” Erfassen á la Blindenschrift machen und dem Betreiber der Talsperre “schenken”?

VG Toni

Yeah, it was a nice Saturday and was nice meeting you (partly the first time).

@rayKiddy: well, that’s what I also do but I nevertheless use the overpass api instead of OSM api. OSM API is for Editors, … not for read-only QA tools.

@kucai: 1. I usually break them up into sections, including only those which are actually used 2. others include the entire roundabout (if not already split into sections) - also valid 3. do not bypass them, include them

JOSM’s validator allows both 1. and 2. and complains for 3. Same applies for my tool.

I use OVERPASS API instead of OSM API. This API is designed for those queries.

I download all relevant data in one go into an XML file and let the analysis code parse that file.

Example for querying all public transport data for busses in the the “county” of “Landshut” (all counties worl-wide with that name)

http://overpass-api.de/api/interpreter?data=area[boundary=administrative][admin_level=6][name~’Landshut’];(rel(area)[route~’(bus)’];rel(br);reltype=’route’;)->.routes;(.routes;rel(r.routes);way(r.routes);node(r.routes););out;

https://overpass-turbo.eu/

is a good playground.

Be sure to use the ID of nodes instead of their LAT/LON to check the connectedness of ways.

Hi rayKiddy,

yep, the code ist in github

https://github.com/osm-ToniE/analyze-routes

The relevant code starts at line 2850 of

https://github.com/osm-ToniE/analyze-routes/blob/master/bin/analyze-routes.pl

It does what it has to do, after many patches and adding more and more if/else. But I’m afraid 50% of the code is redundant (never change a running system …). A re-design is on the roadmap though.

The tool currently analyzes 27 Public Transport networks in Germany, mostly Bavaria …

An overview (in German) is given here

osm.wiki/User:ToniE/analyze-routes#Analysierte_Verbunde

Examples of the output can be found in the column ‘Name’.

Br Toni

I have similar code in Perl which checks ways in Public Transport relations (PTv2).

Take the given sequence of the ways in the relation and check

• whether a way is connected to its the sucessor or not (count number of gaps),

• whether the vehicle (bus, tram, train, …) uses a oneway road in wrong direction w/o oneway:psv=no, oneway:bus=no, …

• whether a roundabout is included in the list completely but the vehicle uses only segments,

• whether the vehicle is allowed to use the road (no for: hw=construction, =footway, … w/o psv=yes, …)

• and so on

The code became pretty complicated and long and maintaining that part of the overall code is hard.