We continue to develop resources related to the COVID-19 pandemic. See COVID-19 initiatives on Appropedia for more information.
OSSTIP/WP2- Transport Informatics tools review
This is a Work Package as part of the OSSTIP project.
Inputs: Initial sample GTFS and other data from OSSTIP/WP1, Open source package codes. Outputs: Short evaluation report on each tool, stating pros and cons, saved example code and datasets in project repository/dropbox.
Estimated Time: Small-medium
The goal of this WP is to download and briefly evaluate all of the key candidate software packages identified for potential use as the core basis for the rest of the project and the OSSTIP tool.
At the outset, these are expected to be, as per the Appropedia page Open Source Transport Informatics tools:
Primary criteria for evaluation and selection will be:
- The quality and usefulness of visual display capabilities in assessing and communicating transport network coverage and usefulness;
- Accuracy of the results generated – and whether they include walking and cycling connections;
- Speed of the results generated;
- How easy the tool is to use, including data formats used, and preparation requirements, and documentation availability;
- The dependencies it has on other software that needs to be installed first or utilised;
- How challenging it would be to utilise the tool as part of an interactive web-based display of a proposed transport network & schedule (See WP8);
- How well-designed and interoperable the tool is to integrate into a larger transport analysis and modelling system (See BZE later Work Packages);
- Level of community activity and support for the code (e.g. on mailing lists), future plans, and institutional support.
Each package should be downloaded, briefly assessed on some sample data, and the results saved in a project repository (e.g. either Github or Dropbox).
See Open Source Transport Informatics tools for links to surveyed list of main tools.
Only some of them will be covered in the table below. The Open Source Accessibility Toolkit was added to the list, because of its possible use as supporting mode-choice comparison work in trip assignment in an origin-destination matrix via different modes.
Please note: table initially completed July 2013. It may not be maintained afterwards, so please check the edit dates/change log of this page to be sure.
Relevant project blog posts:
General page: OpenTripPlanner
Dependencies on other software: Med
Quality and usefulness of visual display: Med-Good
Accuracy of results: Good
speed & scalability: Med-Good
Ease of installation, use (inc documentation): Med
Potential for use in web-based interactive display: V Good
Interoperability potential into larger transport modelling work: Good
Level of community activity and support: Good
Previously based at www.openplans.org. Seems recently planned future institutional support as part of commercial routing activities.
General page: Graphserver
General page: Mapnificent
General page: Mapumental (Open Source version)
Open Source Accessibility Toolkit (OSAT)
As at July 2013, I suggest the OpenTripPlanner tool be the focus of further effort. This is because of the combination of:
- Seemingly most active development community, ever since Graphserver code was ported across to it by the Graphserver founder. This includes a few other developers in Melbourne who presented on it at a recent Melb Open GIS meetup;
- Cross-platform, and can be set up and got up and going within a day (for someone at least a bit familiar with XML files);
- Documentation isn't perfect, but has quite a large Wiki, and is notably better than several other tools, e.g. Graphserver;
- Performance is at least reasonable:- its in use in large-scale route planning projects such as a Netherlands-wide cycle trip planner, and there are innovations at work to improve this (see LargeGraphs page on OTP Wiki and the actual implementation is http://opentripplanner.nl/index.html/);
- The OpenTripPlanner Analyst already has a pretty good Travel Time Maps visualisation capability built in, that could be extended. While not as "pretty" as Mapumental's, having this capability in an active codebase is potentially a big time-saver.
As the project progresses to later stages, we can also assess whether OTP will be the best basis for a live web-server to communicate the benefits of the new network interactively, or Mapnificent. The benefit of Mapnificent is it *might* be faster, but OTP is more accurate based on the actual timetables.
Similarly, we should also investigate whether Open Source Accessibility Toolkit should be used for routing comparison, or else develop this directly as an OTP extension (this might require a bit more research in that WP).