Also no reason why the stop details should be repeated on them and no real need to add them to the route relations

Why should the platforms be part of the route and not the stops ? I don’t see why one should be prioritized above the other; in I would argue that to the route the bus/train/tram takes the stopping positions are more related. So I think the best thing to do is to add them both to the relation; it’s really not a big deal.

I don’t understand what is the issue with PTv2. The previous schema was limited and imprecise.

The downside of having a more exact schema is that it’s less simple. But that’s the price to pay to have an accurate map. You can’t always map complex things with simple schema, sometimes you need to accept a bit more complexity (let’s face it, it’s really not that complicated to map stops and lines).

What’s even better with PTv2, is that if you don’t want to map stop_positions for example, you can just map the platforms, and let someone else map the rest. Please just don’t delete correct information on the map because you don’t want “extra complexity”.

Neat, thanks !

Maybe building errors come from the house owners not supplying corrects blueprints ?

Neat writeup !

Also, I think it would be a good idea to add those requests to the wiki, as it is more searchable than the user diaries, e.g. PT Quality Asurrance :

osm.wiki/Public_transport/Quality_Assurance

Nice ressource for fixing the most common mistakes on recycling objects !

FYI, you can simplify those requests, for example the opening_hours one to :

node({{bbox}})
  [amenity=recycling]
  [!"opening_hours"];
out meta;

Neat !

“However if I was just looking at closed polygons, then I would have stopped as soon as I fixed that polygon, and moved on.”

Yes, there would have been errors in that area that would have stayed untouched, but by checking the area and fixing those errors you (most probably) left broken polygons on the map during that time.

Both approaches (“subject-driven” and “area-driven”) to fixing the map are valid; as the map can be always enhanced and human time is not infinite you’ll always have to make a choice of what you want to add/fix and leave something behind.

That’s the curse of the mapper :)

Nice, thank you for making it easier to run osrm !

Hello,

I see that you are using proper logging, good idea.

On top of my head, some things I think can be improved :

• Such a long file should be split for readability
• Lines are too long
• Try to remove old commented code, that’s why code versionning tools exist (e.g. Git)
• There is too much complexity (nested levels of conditions, exceptions handling, etc.)
• Variables could be more explicit (instead of NATO alphabet)
• There is a lot of redundancy starting around line 1000
• Your code should be wrapped in a class/function to allow importing the file without executing it

Anyway, great work; as you said you accomplished your original goals and that’s what is important !

Thank you for those reviews !

I removed the way and relation search from the query for highway=bus_stops as there shouldn’t be ways tagged this way. I also added public_transport=platform nodes and ways, and the newer Public Transport scheme represent platforms where people wait this way :

Overpass query

Other transport means can be included when using public_transport=platform, but after a quick visual check there doesn’t seem to be significant.

This brings the count of public transport stops to around 1715; a bit more but nowhere near 50k from your calculations.

I would agree with the method suggested by Athalis, there are too much needlessly duplicated names

Nice job !

J’avais initialement mis le ‘,i’, mais bon je me suis dit que les boulevards n’auront surement pas d’erreur de capitalisation.

En effet le résultat est meilleur sur les 2 et 3 !

Sinon c’est une bonne idée donnant une visu sympa, mettant en valeur ce qu’on peut faire (relativement) facilement avec OSM, et ça fait réviser l’histoire de nos villes !

Voici la requette overpass utilisable pour avoir le même résultat :

way[name~"^Boulevard"]({{bbox}});
out geom;

https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/jlJ

Pour éviter que des cercles apparaissent là où les ways sont trop petites, cocher “N’affiche pas les petits objets comme points d’intérêts.” dans Paramètres > Carte.

I concur with cquest for [1], as the general public is not allowed to go on that stretch of road from anywhere, so a turn restriction would be redundant.

Some answers as I’m french and haven’t forgot the entirety of traffic laws :)

[1] For the general public, this is a no-left-turn. “Service” means specially authorized vehicle, so I think that a general no-left-turn is ok.

[2] The distance from the sign to the danger or restriction is defined strictly, that’s why multiple independant signs can be stacked. In this case, those signs does not follow the legal requirements, so they are just indication without a legal standing. The first sign is to indicate what is there (Civilian Protection, a kind of state-run emergency services), the second one is “Generic Danger”, with a subtext explaining that emergency vehicles can enter the road, and you’ve already explained the third.

[3] The upper “double-sign” means that vehickles transporting dangerous materials (filled orange) must turn right. The “E” sign means that the upcoming tunnel is class “E” by european standards, meaning that almost every truck with dangerous stuff can’t go in that tunnel.

[4] This is a straight-only restriction. Maybe three oneways join to a fourth oneway, or maybe the turn radius is too short to turn.

Thank you for the heads up, I did not know they were being posted.

And if you’re an organizer, thank you for uploading the videos !