Adelaide Metro using OpenStreetmap/OpenTripPlanner instead of Google Transit

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
15 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Adelaide Metro using OpenStreetmap/OpenTripPlanner instead of Google Transit

Alex Sims
Adelaide Metro, the umbrella brand for public transport in Adelaide on
their new (beta) website at

http://www.adelaidemetro.com.au/

are using OpenTripPlanner and OpenStreetmap for journey planning. Nice
to see OpenStreetmap getting more, albeit unacknowledged exposure.

Alex

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Adelaide Metro using OpenStreetmap/OpenTripPlanner instead of Google Transit

Daniel O'Connor


On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 5:08 PM, Alex Sims <[hidden email]> wrote:
Adelaide Metro, the umbrella brand for public transport in Adelaide on their new (beta) website at

http://www.adelaidemetro.com.au/

are using OpenTripPlanner and OpenStreetmap for journey planning. Nice to see OpenStreetmap getting more, albeit unacknowledged exposure.

Are they pushing data into OSM? Or do we know if the installation has data services available? (Good to see the bus stops are URIs!)

I remember approaching them several years ago, asking about data extracts of timetables/stop locations/etc to do mashups - I met with them, but I felt it went poorly at the time.

It's interesting to see this as basically an about face!

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Adelaide Metro using OpenStreetmap/OpenTripPlanner instead of Google Transit

Alex Sims
My understanding is that real time data is sent from all Metrocard vehicles via GPRS to a central site. The supply of data is "real soon now" and they are keen to get developers using the data

All of the timetable data and stop data has been available for a year or so as GTFS format, although hidden on their old site under "site map". There is a copy also on GitHub.

Getting back on topic I don't think their license condition permits upload to OpenStreetmap, but it wouldn't hurt to ask.

Alex

On 01/11/2012, at 9:11 PM, "Daniel O'Connor" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Are they pushing data into OSM? Or do we know if the installation has data services available? (Good to see the bus stops are URIs!)
>
> I remember approaching them several years ago, asking about data extracts of timetables/stop locations/etc to do mashups - I met with them, but I felt it went poorly at the time.

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Adelaide Metro using OpenStreetmap/OpenTripPlanner instead of Google Transit

Daniel O'Connor


All of the timetable data and stop data has been available for a year or so as GTFS format, although hidden on their old site under "site map". There is a copy also on GitHub.

Neat, wish I'd seen that sooner!

Getting back on topic

So I guess...
What's the best kind of contribution that would make their use of OSM more relevant to the public? 

I put in a suggestion around looking at different renders - something more like the transport map would be useful (as it focused on bus stops and roads only), but I really don't know enough about the tools to judge how hard that is.

House/street numbering, place names come to mind, but what else would people recommend?

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Adelaide Metro using OpenStreetmap/OpenTripPlanner instead of Google Transit

John Henderson-7
On 01/11/12 23:43, Daniel O'Connor wrote:

> What's the best kind of contribution that would make their use of OSM
>  more relevant to the public?

Putting in the footpaths which aren't alongside the road.  I mean the
important ones which run between buildings to allow pedestrian access
between streets without having to go the long way around (and following
the route cars would have to take).

John


_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: traffic lights on dual carriageway intersections

John Henderson-7
In reply to this post by Daniel O'Connor
"Steer" wrote:

> I have been trying to find the accepted practise for mapping traffic
> lights where dual carriageways interest.  There is much discussion
> on various sites, but most seems to be a bit old, and I’m not
> convinced I’ve found what is the latest accepted practise.

> I checked some intersections in Melbourne’s CBD, and the method I saw
> that I liked and thought the best was where there were 4 lights at
> the intersection, but they were not placed on the intersecting modes,
> but one node back “upstream” on each way.  I think this is good
> because no matter which way you go through the intersection, you only
> pass one set of lights (rather than 2 if they were placed on the
> actual intersecting nodes).

> Any comments?

I have always entered such traffic lights on dual carriageways in the
way you describe.  This is because:

1. The "traffic light count" along a section of road is then accurate, and

2.  It's the accurate representation of what's on the ground.  It lets
us convey the significance of the stop lines associated with the lights.
That's something we can't do with two-way traffic without compromising
point 1.

I have argued this position on previous occasions.

John

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: traffic lights on dual carriageway intersections

Ross Scanlon
And the only area it's done like this is in Melbourne.

Cheers
Ross


On 03/11/12 17:03, John Henderson wrote:

> "Steer" wrote:
>
>> I have been trying to find the accepted practise for mapping traffic
>> lights where dual carriageways interest. There is much discussion
>> on various sites, but most seems to be a bit old, and I’m not
>> convinced I’ve found what is the latest accepted practise.
>
>> I checked some intersections in Melbourne’s CBD, and the method I saw
>> that I liked and thought the best was where there were 4 lights at
>> the intersection, but they were not placed on the intersecting modes,
>> but one node back “upstream” on each way. I think this is good
>> because no matter which way you go through the intersection, you only
>> pass one set of lights (rather than 2 if they were placed on the
>> actual intersecting nodes).
>
>> Any comments?
>
> I have always entered such traffic lights on dual carriageways in the
> way you describe. This is because:
>
> 1. The "traffic light count" along a section of road is then accurate, and
>
> 2. It's the accurate representation of what's on the ground. It lets
> us convey the significance of the stop lines associated with the lights.
> That's something we can't do with two-way traffic without compromising
> point 1.
>
> I have argued this position on previous occasions.
>
> John
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au


_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: traffic lights on dual carriageway intersections

Alex Sims
In reply to this post by John Henderson-7
On 3/11/2012 5:33 PM, John Henderson wrote:
>> I checked some intersections in Melbourne’s CBD, and the method I saw
>> that I liked and thought the best was where there were 4 lights at
>> the intersection, but they were not placed on the intersecting modes,
>> but one node back “upstream” on each way.  I think this is good
>> because no matter which way you go through the intersection, you only
>> pass one set of lights (rather than 2 if they were placed on the
>> actual intersecting nodes).
I read it and liked it but then poked around near me but found that
traffic signals where a divided road meets and undivided road, the
undivided road gets a count of two. You could put the undivided (two
ray) road traffic signals in the centre of the intersection but that
starts to look pretty strange.

Which then leads us to possible accusations of mapping for the "routing
renderer". Strictly speaking the traffic lights are things on poles
placed on traffic islands as well as overhead gantries. Should we be
tagging the physical object, ie. the signal rather than its effect which
is most pronounced at the stop-line?

Another thought would be to tag the stopline with a direction tag to
hint the renderer that a vehicle would stop here moving in a particular
direction..starts to get complicated. What about wig-wags outside
fire-stations or supplementary traffic signals applied to a level
crossing. Starts to get tricky..

Still worth thinking about...

Alex

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: traffic lights on dual carriageway intersections

Ian Sergeant-2
In reply to this post by John Henderson-7
On 03/11/12 18:03, John Henderson wrote:
> 2.  It's the accurate representation of what's on the ground.  It lets
> us convey the significance of the stop lines associated with the lights.
> That's something we can't do with two-way traffic without compromising
> point 1.

Mapping is choosing a representation of what is on the ground.

By choosing to place traffic light not on the intersection node, you are
failing to represent that "this is an intersection of two roads,
controlled by traffic signals".  Instead you are choosing to represent
"There is a stop line here and traffic signal and further on there is an
intersection".

So, ideally we should have a rich enough mapping set to allow us to
indicate both.

However,  since we can currently represent only one, I currently feel
that it is far more important to indicate that the intersection is
controlled, than the location of the traffic signals, or an accurate
count of traffic signals.  This is especially true, since in the general
case (non-dual carriageway) we can't represent these things anyway.  So,
even if we favour the stop line location/traffic signal count method, it
will always be wrong and unreliable.

Ian.

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: traffic lights on dual carriageway intersections

John Henderson-7
On 04/11/12 07:29, Ian Sergeant wrote:

> By choosing to place traffic light not on the intersection node, you
> are failing to represent that "this is an intersection of two roads,
>  controlled by traffic signals".  Instead you are choosing to
> represent "There is a stop line here and traffic signal and further
> on there is an intersection".

We have different intuitions about what's important here.

John


_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: traffic lights on dual carriageway intersections

Ian Steer
In reply to this post by John Henderson-7

>>>> By choosing to place traffic light not on the intersection node, you
are failing to represent that "this is an intersection of two roads,
controlled by traffic signals".

I don't see how it is failing to represent that - the intersection is there
(the ways intersect at nodes), and there are traffic signals *before* the
intersection (not smack-bang in the middle of the intersection)


>>>> Instead you are choosing to represent "There is a stop line here and
traffic signal and further on there is an intersection".

- but isn't that EXACTLY what we have - a stop line with a traffic signal,
with an intersection further on ?

- and if we were REALLY keen, the same *could* be done for single carriage
way intersections (but I'm not suggesting that that is a sensible option)

Ian


_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: traffic lights on dual carriageway intersections

Ian Sergeant-2
On 4 November 2012 20:58, Ian Steer <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>>>>> By choosing to place traffic light not on the intersection node, you
> are failing to represent that "this is an intersection of two roads,
> controlled by traffic signals".
>
> I don't see how it is failing to represent that - the intersection is there
> (the ways intersect at nodes), and there are traffic signals *before* the
> intersection (not smack-bang in the middle of the intersection)

Because our current schema indicates that an intesection is controlled
by signals by placing the traffic signals on the intersecting node.
Traffic lights do occur before intersections or the immediate vicinity
without controlling traffic movements through that intersection.

It is a meaningful respresentation.  In many North American cities the
signals hang right in the centre of the intersection.  Are you saying
these should be mapped differently just because the lights are located
in a different location?  As far as the road user is concerned, they
are the same.  They don't care where the traffic signals are - they
care there are lights at the corner of 6th and Vine.

> - and if we were REALLY keen, the same *could* be done for single carriage
> way intersections (but I'm not suggesting that that is a sensible option)

Exactly.  This is the clincher.  Why on earth would you develop a
schema that is only relevant to dual carriageways?

When there is a schema that can respresent stop lines, signal
locations, and intersection control across all junctions then I'm in.
Until then, trying to vary the current schema in a way that is both
ambigious, and only works for dual carriageways just doesn't fly, IMO.

Ian.

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: traffic lights on dual carriageway intersections

Nick Hocking
In reply to this post by John Henderson-7
Ian Steer wrote
 
"I think this is good because no matter
which way you go through the intersection, you only pass one set of lights
(rather than 2 if they were placed on the actual intersecting nodes)."
 
 
Couldn't a smart "traffic light counter" detect dual carrageways and just add a single signal, same as the exit counter does for roundabouts?
 
Nick

 


_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: traffic lights on dual carriageway intersections

Steer
In reply to this post by John Henderson-7

So, Ian Sergeant has presented reasoning why we should not pursue more complicated schemes for applying traffic lights to intersections of dual carriageways – fair enough.

 

This brings me back to the incident that triggered me to start this thread:  there are several intersections of dual carriageways in Perth CBD where only 1 of the 4 nodes are marked with traffic lights, and this struck me as wrong, and hence I asked what was the correct and accepted method.

 

If we are to reject the more complex solution of adding traffic lights one node back from the interesting nodes (as implemented in Melbourne CBD, and reasoned against by Ian), surely we should be marking all 4 intersection nodes as having traffic lights ?? (not just one).

 

what does everyone think ?

 

Ian Steer


_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: traffic lights on dual carriageway intersections

Ian Sergeant-2
On 07/11/12 23:21, Steer wrote:

So, Ian Sergeant has presented reasoning why we should not pursue more complicated schemes for applying traffic lights to intersections of dual carriageways – fair enough.

 


That is not quite what I said.

I'd be happy to see a more detailed schema that is expressive enough to indicate where the stop line is, the physical location of the signals, which signals are in sync, how many signals on a journey, etc.

The current one tag/independent node system means that you need to make a choice in what you can represent. 

Since I can't see a way to generally and accurately represent traffic light count in the current schema, I think that is the wrong choice to represent just on dual carriageways.

I think a relation that links these nodes is probably inevitable.

Ian.

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au