4 ms·

Yes, it's not a bad thing. You get more accurate data (crucial for estimating fares for distance-based services). We're a team of 2 people at Moving Gauteng [0

by nevi-me 11y ago

Yes, it's not a bad thing. You get more accurate data (crucial for estimating fares for distance-based services). We're a team of 2 people at Moving Gauteng [0], and we maintain transit data of 7 and growing transit services. We have 1100 routes mapped, with detailed schedules and other info. The problem with drawing simple lines to approximate what route the service takes is that you become limited by the inaccuracy of your data. There are many fare calculating rules, and a good deal are based on distance covered. Having a polyline that's > 95% accurate helps greatly in calculating the correct result for the user. I agree on your point that a mix of automation and manual entry's good. In some instances it's better to track the bus by GPS and snap the GPS points to a route using GIS software like ArcGIS (or even Mapbox as they have such an API). [0] https://movinggauteng.co.za https://movinggauteng.co.za

ant6n 11y ago
We at Transit App have about 15000 routes, which were managed by one or two people or so until relatively recently. Manual mapping, an extra task, would not be feasible. You also have to consider that just having good shapes for routes (which is often in the data anyway) doesn't mean you automagically get good transit maps. You have to decide when lines are travelling together, which Google apparently does by considering the stops that lines travel on. You can see lines stay together as long as they travel the same stops, and immediately branch at a stop when they branch, even though the physical branch happens later.
- nevi-me 11y ago
  I presume you get data from GTFS feeds. If so, it'd be more feasible to build a service that converts a 'poorly mapped' route into something better almost automatically. Manual involvement would be necessary to only correct defects from the process. Although we manually map, we reuse most route segments, especially trains where 2 similar lines could travel 80-90% on the same tracks. We just chop and screw where necessary. The whole thing takes a few minutes to draw a new route based on existing ones.

by nevi-me 11y ago

ant6n 11y ago

We at Transit App have about 15000 routes, which were managed by one or two people or so until relatively recently. Manual mapping, an extra task, would not be feasible. You also have to consider that just having good shapes for routes (which is often in the data anyway) doesn't mean you automagically get good transit maps. You have to decide when lines are travelling together, which Google apparently does by considering the stops that lines travel on. You can see lines stay together as long as they travel the same stops, and immediately branch at a stop when they branch, even though the physical branch happens later.

nevi-me 11y ago
I presume you get data from GTFS feeds. If so, it'd be more feasible to build a service that converts a 'poorly mapped' route into something better almost automatically. Manual involvement would be necessary to only correct defects from the process. Although we manually map, we reuse most route segments, especially trains where 2 similar lines could travel 80-90% on the same tracks. We just chop and screw where necessary. The whole thing takes a few minutes to draw a new route based on existing ones.