Talk:GTFS
About GTFS data imports into OSM
We should probably warn public transport enthusiasts against the idea to blindly import GTFS feeds into OSM. Common sense and human review should always prevail.
For instance, the public transport company operating in my area sometimes removes stops that have no service within the current 14-day period or adds temporary stops to GTFS data; it also adds some non-existing stops that are used exclusively for timetabling purposes. In addition to that, stops can be relocated or renamed and sometimes it will take months before the transit authority updates their files to the real situation.
Every now and then, we see new mappers changing or removing valid OSM data because they do not realize how GTFS data is produced, and want OSM to match GTFS data, regardless of ground truth or existing standards, such as mapping normal itineraries and ignoring short-term service changes. Bxl-forever (talk) 00:01, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Multiple stop points on a single platform
Hi,
I don't know how to tag a platform that has multiple stop points. For example, for this tram platform: 545098115
545098115, we have a central platform and two tracks on both sides. The stop codes of these two stop points are 369A and 369B, and the stop IDs are LYMAB_01 are LYMAB_02. But how can I tag the platform? I think that we should tag multiple stop codes and stop ids on a single OSM stop point or platform, separating them with semicolons. What do you think? I want to do something standard and that could be well-interpreted.
For example, PTNA don't consider semicolons, and consider that I made an error: https://ptna.openstreetmap.de/gtfs/compare-trips.php?feed=FR-GES-CTS&release_date=2024-05-06&trip_id=18624351-23SEPW-B-F-Dimanche-00&relation=163585
- I consider this as a bug in PTNA and will fix that ASAP, allowing semicolon separated stop_ids.
- BTW, the link no longer shows an error, 'cause you've fixed that with separated platfroms.
- --ToniE (talk) 10:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Another solution is to separate platforms in two smaller platforms, but I don't think we want to do so.
- Hmm, I haven't mapped separate platforms so far, but (as PTNA author) do not want to force mapper to do so.
- --ToniE (talk) 10:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Any opinion? - Ÿnerant
- I would leave out the GTFS tags on the platform, they are already present on the tram stops where they are unambiguous.
- Spaanse (talk)
- IMO, GTFS' term of a "stop" can and should be compared with OSM's term of a platform.
- So, I wouldn't add gtfs:stop_id=* or
gtfs:stop_id:<feed>to a public_transport=stop_position but only to a public_transport=platform when mapping accordng to "PTv2" - --ToniE (talk) 10:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- The GTFS feed does not implement stations, but otherwise I would have used the station's properties on the platform.
- Spaanse (talk)
- GTFS defines something like a "station" by using "location_type=1" and "parent_station" in the "stops.txt". Not available in all feeds though.
- This then can be added to OSM's railway=station (nodes, ways, areas, ...).
- --ToniE (talk) 10:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)