> I can only tell you how I would do it with the current scheme. If some day > in a very distant future we'll have routes built up from segments, there > might be a better way then. > > 2016-08-03 8:55 GMT+02:00 Michael Tsang <mikl...@gmail.com>: > >> Dear all, >> >> How should I fill in the ref=* tag for public transport routes with >> multiple >> reference numbers, in each of the following cases? >> >> 1. There is a service identified by three different numbers, while in >> fact >> the >> three numbers belong to the same service with completely no differences. >> This >> is the case with minibus routes 52A/54A/56A in New Territories, where >> two >> operators jointly dispatch minibuses onto these routes, sometimes with >> number >> 52A, sometimes with 54A, and sometimes with 56A. However, they are >> identical >> services. >> >> Is using semicolon in the ref=* tag a good idea? >> > > No. > I would use 3 separate route relations. Annoyingly JOSM's validator will > probably complain about that. They are 3 different routes though and the > operator/network tags will be different between them.
You could choose to put them in one single route_master.. In Réunion, there are bus lines like 26 and 26a, where 26a has a different last few stops. I put those in one route_master. >> >> 2. There is a service identified by two different numbers, where the two >> numbers >> are always used simultaneously. This is the case with Shenzhen bus >> routes >> M215-M218, where both numbers are always displayed side-by-side in bus >> stops >> and on the number plates of the buses. They are almost never used >> individually. >> > > Mark ref as it is marked on the buses and the stops, so probably > ref=M215-M218 > >> >> 3. There is a service, due to operational reasons, identified by two >> different >> numbers. However, the two different numbers are used in different >> segment >> of the >> service, but in fact, they belongs to the same service (i.e. passengers >> can >> get a ticket and board the vehicle on the segment with the first number, >> and >> alight at the end of the segment with the second number without >> intermediate >> alighting or additional payment). This is the case with train route >> Z806/Z803 >> from Zhaoqing to Kowloon, where the number Z806 is used on the segment >> from >> Zhaoqing to Guangzhou, and Z803 is used on the segment from Guangzhou to >> Kowloon (i.e. it can be treated as a through service). >> > > I would use 2 separate routes here as well. I don't think we have a way to > indicate the happy coincidence that passengers can remain seated, but they > do behave like different routes. Exactly. We have (had?) a common situation like here as well, but it was a "triangle" I.E. you could remain seated from 36->38, then from 38->31 and from 31->36. But different lines altogether. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
