Talk:Hong Kong/Transport/Public transport

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Explaining problems and solutions

As requested from https://discord.com/channels/550009593468813312/550324691001147422/1061586731603865620 onwards, I will elaborate on how I see this issue. I will use *:en=*, with *=* and *:zh=* omitted for brevity.

I will start by laying out my solution. I use network=* for the transit system, and brand=* for the operation system. Mainly, this allows network:en=MTR to unify all systems offering some transfer discount or common identity, including brand:en=Light Rail, brand:en=MTR Bus, and brand:en=MTR Feeder Bus. For buses, this allows separate brand:en=KMB and brand:en=LWB to be kept under a network:en=KMB;LWB. The other reason for seemingly repeating this is either brand:en=Citybus or network:en=Citybus may be used alone on its non-franchised bus without the other, nor integrated in network:en=Citybus;NWFB.

The syntax of emicolon-delimited multivalue is already supported by Key:network#Public_transit. 2 isolated international uses I can find that supports brand=*. There are some brand=Flixbus, although network=Flixbus is more numerous. In Paris, network=RER + brand=Île-de-France Mobilités has been used, which could be reversed to brand=RER plus an undetermined network=* for Paris, allowing some form of mingling of Transilien and SNCF in either brand=* or network=*; perhaps also brand=TER.

I feel this is applicable to London, so that network=TfL can be used to unify brand=London Buses, brand=London Underground, etc. If we look at USA from the examples, network=CMTA (currently mixed usage), network=CTA, network=MBTA, and network=Muni is in this pattern; so is network=SEPTA, network=WMATA (currently mixed usage) . Then I can also suggest to use brand=MetroRail, brand=L and brand=T (could be debated), and brand:en=Muni Metro (netowkr=BART; as well as brand=Metrobus.

The existing suggested list is a mix of different categorizations.

This makes them appear separate, while they have integrated fares. brand:en=MTR will explain it's the metro division of MTR, while network:en=MTR shows the MTR heavy rail and intermediate capacity rapid transit systems are part of the whole mass transit system.

They are separate networks. They don't have integrated ticketing, just limited transfer discount. One of the key criteria for defining what a network=* is the existence of integrated ticketing. In such respect the MTR Urban lines, Airport Express, Light Rail, MTR Bus and MTR Feeder Bus are all separate networks. -Miklcct (talk) 13:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
  • network=城際直通車 Intercity Through Train
  • network=高速鐵路 High Speed Rail

They don't make much sense, as they are classes or services of trains. They should be combined with PRC's system, with brand=* being a possible option for localization or identity of HSR (and the now defunct Through Train). PRC tagging appears to be quite a mess.

I agree. The network tag should be the one used for the PRC system. -Miklcct (talk) 13:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

This means an entirely new entity is created, not allowing the existing identifiers to be reused. As exemplified in network=新巴城巴 Citybus & NWFB;居民巴士 Residents' Service, it causes NWFB to be associated with the unrelated Citybus non-franchised operations, alongside other problems.

This is something controversial. These buses don't have integrated fares so we can't defined a network=* using the most prominent criteria, however, in terms of passenger information, they are two distinct networks which was why I used these 2 made-up tags. Legally, Citybus (franchise 3) and Citybus (franchise 2) are separate franchised bus networks but they are irrelevant on the ground.-Miklcct (talk) 13:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

No problem yet.

  • network=港島專綫小巴 Hong Kong Island Green Minibus
  • network=九龍專綫小巴 Kowloon Green Minibus
  • network=新界專綫小巴 New Territories Green Minibus
  • network=居民巴士 Residents' Service
  • network=公共小巴 Public Light Bus
  • network=港內線渡輪 Inner Harbour Ferry
  • network=港外線渡輪 Outlying Islands Ferry
  • network=街渡 Kai-to

These are totally irrelevant with each other. They are all a legal category (it makes as much sense as using Railway Act, Tramway Act, and urban planning urban rapid transit railway in Japan; or Light Railways Act in UK); or, some further separated by geography. Especially Red Minibus have little organization between each other, and I won't use network=* for taxis either. This won't allow certain groups of minibuses, ferries, and kai-to to be shown as related to each other. The example of Resident Service is particularly troublesome, no less because both MTR Bus (NWNT) and MTR Feeder Bus are non-franchised. Mixing of the customer-facing franchise identity and the regulatory non-franchised licence category in network=新巴城巴 Citybus & NWFB;居民巴士 Residents' Service shows these are 2 orthogonal dimensions that makes the classification unworkable. (I suggest designation=* for this, and the official route category according to the Schedule of Routes; though this is more off-topic)
As a fallback, if brand=* is desired for service identities within, eg Cityflyer and Airport Express, I have used railway:network=* and public_transport:network=* to clarify for good measures. However, different brand=* can still be related in a single network=* (eg brand:en=Cityflyer alongside ordinary brand:en=Citybus, brand:en=Airport Express alongside ordinary brand:en=MTR), so I don't find this as preventing the use of brand=* and network=* directly.
--- Kovposch (talk) 11:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

brand=* is desirable for examples like brand:en=Cityflyer. However, they are for all intents and purposes being in the same network as all brand:en=Citybus routes.

For illustration purposes, the now discontinuted Airport Express shuttle bus may too use brand=*. network=* is MTR.
Possible questions:
Why not use operator=* + network=* only? As mentioned, Citybus has non-franchise, so is KMB for MTR Feeder. MTRCL itself has Ngong Ping 360 and airport APM.
Is it still a significant issue when Citybus is going to absorb NWFB soon? If anything, this is argument supporting multivalue, as a new short-lived entity doesn't have to be created. KMB and LWB remains, and the monthly pass that covers LWB is still named KMB only, not KMB & LWB. It is advantageous to keep them separate yet together. --- Kovposch (talk) 12:02, 9 January 2023 (UTC)


My two cents.

  • Hong Kong is complicated mostly because
    1. many other cities have unified public transport network or have a single operator for everything, and / or
    2. in other cities network can easily be distinguished by mode
  • I don't actually find problem with minibus, residential bus and / or ferry services having their current network=* values, although for easy network:wikidata=* assignment, I used a single network=Public light bus value for all minibus infrastructure I had added over the past few months.
  • The most troublesome one is franchised buses. I actually have two different suggestions.
    1. First scheme is to basically distinguish by operator, but with some assertions or exceptions as follows.
      • KMB and LWB may share monthly pass system but they are two separate companies under common ownership in corporate sense, not too different from Citybus and NWFB.
      • Citybus residential service should still be put under "residential bus" network. network=Citybus should only include franchised bus services.
      • KMB-operated MTR feeder can either be KMB or MTR bus network (I personally prefer the latter). Also, no distinction between MTR bus and MTR feeder bus.
      Issue for scheme 1 is that network=Cross harbour buses and a few other jointly-operated routes like S1 and R8 will have to be assigned with two values (semicolon, yes)
    2. Second scheme is to break franchised bus into the following networks:
      Issue of scheme 2 is that infrastructure of, say, Citybus, can be very messy. My suggestion is to remove network=* from infrastructure, e.g. bus stops, altogether.
    3. Third scheme is even simpler. Just use one network=Franchised bus to encompass all franchised bus routes. Same as scheme 2, all bus-related infrastructure should have the network=* tag removed in this case.
  • MTR bus should, of course, be a separate network=* at least distinct from minibuses and residential buses. It should also include MTR feeder bus.
    • Airport Express could arguably be identified as a separate network, taking Airport Express shuttle bus with it. No point for it now, though.

-- Patrickov (talk) 16:59, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

  1. As I provided examples, it's not a lone case.
    1. London and Singapore still have quite a few contractors under the tender model. Then they can be related with the entire transit system under TfL or LTA
    2. For train, London has Crossrail and Overground. Coach bus service is an unresolved issue.
  2. I don't find them worthy, valuable, or valid to get a network=*. It is almost a case of Wikipedia category and Relations are not categories. Indeed type=network has been proposed by some. In theory, this would be the same as network=*. If they don't interact with each other, there's no relationship. It doesn't emulate the pattern of other international examples.
  3. Ditto for my principle above. Fundamentally, if presentation of ref=* and route_ref=* (including application UI, and map rendering) is the issue rather than network=* (solving the later won't solve the former), it can become a hierarchical format similar to roads in other countries, A la route_ref=KMB 108;NWFB 25, then route=bus will show distinct ref=KMB 108, ref=NWFB 25. Green minibus may be ref=GMB 123. This produces a unique ref=*, while the original code may be relegated to official_ref=* or something. The disadvantage is it gets longer, and looks redundant on solo objects. Often ref:ctb=* or ref:kmb=* appears alone without ref=*. Another case is stations now being coded by KMB after Citybus.
    1. Combining MTR Bus and MTR Feeder Bus alone seems to have no extra benefit for any side of the argument. This only causes confusion over what it is, MTR Bus, or both,
    2. Besides other arguments, this categorization is unphysical and not based on ground reality. You can't find this terminology signposted, except perhaps Cross-harbour. Aside from this, lumping Kowloon and NT together is not a sure thing. Lantau may further be separated to airport, airport island shuttle, external, Tung Chung, and rural. Next, what about overnight and other special variants? Do they form a system of their own? The list goes on for how many variations this can have. So it's not as elegant and straightforward as using the corporate identity.
    3. That's quite unuseful, As mentioned, I would consider designation=* or similar for license or Schedule of Routes classification.
  4. As said, I wanted to show how MTR is interrelated, similar to the prevailing US method.
    1. The relevance of brand=* is increased if Cityflyer or Airport Express is to be separated from ordinary services.
--- Kovposch (talk) 18:31, 10 January 2023 (UTC)


(Too much indent hurts readability so I did not push further in. Sorry)
  1. To respond to Hong Kong's complicatedness, I don't think Hong Kong can follow suit with TfL or LTA, because Transport Department of Hong Kong is not that all-encompassing.
    1. Hong Kong's rail is less of an issue because most are MTR. However, HK Tramways should be separate, as do Peak Tram and Airport APM (each of them do form a network=* of their own, although Peak Tram can drop that tag as it's too small).
    2. London's coach services are like cross-border coach services in Hong Kong. Conceptually they do not form a coherent network so my take is to drop that tag altogether, but let's stick to Hong Kong for the time being.
  2. About minibus and ferries, you seem to suggest dropping the network=* altogether from these transport routes. Can't say I agree, at least not 100%.
    1. Minibuses (green ones, at least) are coordinated by the Transport Department. They should be denoted in at least one network. The same goes for ferries whose routes are tendered and coordinated by the government.
    2. Kai-to is a borderline case.
    3. Cross-border shipping is also borderline. I personally think HK-Macau services is one network (include both Jetfoil and non-Jetfoil ones) and those going to Mainland ports are another.
  3. Back to buses. I thought this discussion is mainly about network=* so I will leave my opinion of ref=* in another point.
    1. I agree that MTR is awkward in terms of buses. I have no strong feelings for all MTR bus routes denoted as simply MTR, just that those K-prefix buses operated by KMB should be separate from KMB themselves no matter what.
    2. Scheme 2 will be as geographical as possible. To answer your question, Lantau should be at most two networks (excluding Discovery Bay and Park Island of course):
      1. North Lantau and Airport, including all related A / E / N / NA / R and S buses, as well as B4 to B6;
      2. Lantau local buses, i.e. NLB routes excluding A35, N35, B4 and B6.
      3. On a side note, I would put B1-B3 and B7-B9 under network=Kowloon and NT buses.
  4. No comment on MTR, even though I think MTR operates Airport Express quite independently from its other lines.
  5. Now something about ref=*, route_ref=*, etc.
    1. I comprehend route_ref=* as exactly what is displayed on the stop, so I only put up numbers as-is.
    2. I accept that ref=* for routes should also display the route number as-is. The only exception is residential buses because TD has an official prefix system which operators don't always follow -- in that case use TD designation, except Discovery Bay local buses, where local numbers are used. There will be awkward cases like KMB 8 and Kowloon GMB 8 essentially sharing the same route, but I see any resulting display issue as a renderer issue and we have no responsibility to "cut our toes to fit the undersize shoes".
    3. I use ref:ctb=* and ref:kmb=* exclusively for their internal reference numbers for stops.
-- Patrickov (talk) 16:40, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
2.1. My bottom line is I don't agree with using a unique freeform text network=*, and this should be reserved for when there is indeed a unique relatable network=*. However it may use eg network:area=* for the geographic type, similar to how bikes and hikers have network=*cn and network=*wn. (I don't agree with cycle_network=*)
2.3. Why would that be the case? There are different companies from TurboJet to Cotai. Not to mention the separate services for Skypier,
3.2.2,3. You opened up a question on why should border services be that grouping. The debate can go on and on. That's why I don't agree with synthetically corroborating them. The exact type can follow the official classification in the Schedule of Routes in eg designation=* (depending on how their category of franchised bus is shown), and the geographic category can be eg is_in=*.
5. Someone brought up the issue of applications and renderers not showing a difference between different systems. So I'm mentioning it as part of a solution.
--- Kovposch (talk) 05:03, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
2.1 It seems hard to define "relatable", and apparently my line is a bit looser than yours (given the geography of Hong Kong I think it's not a stretch to say that ferry routes often form a network of themselves. Exceptions may be Discovery Bay and Park Island, both of which should probably be integrated to their respective bus networks). That said, I will mostly touch buses (and occassionally minibuses) so I don't have too much of a concern for others. My main reason to think "minibus should have network" is that it's odd of leave them out when buses definitely form one or more networks.
2.3 IMHO different services to Macau all go from a group of same places to another group of same places, which, to me, means they are relatable. That said, if the logic for inter-city coaches hold for these services, they could be left out, which is why I said they are borderline cases.
3.2 It's just one of my suggestions. As things stand, network by operator is still the mainstream, and most, including myself, follow that. If scheme 2 bothers you so much I will stop talking about it.
5 Nothing personal. Actually I love to see others making suggestions. Frankly a bit of a pity that only the two of us are interested by this point.
-- Patrickov (talk) 15:34, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
5. It's complicated. The other reason behind route_ref=* is there are quite a few non-standard formats in the wild, eg route_ref=25; 108 {KMB} or route_ref=25 (NWFB); 108 (KMB). So it needs to be tackled. --- Kovposch (talk) 16:49, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Just want to have a small bump. After some recent experiences I made recent works' network=* simple. For example, KMB routes are only denoted as network=KMB and network:wikidata=Q312243; while Citybus routes have network=CTB and network:wikidata=Q5124055. (I somehow tagged Cityflyer stuff network=Cityflyer and network:wikidata=Q5124066 because they have separate wikidata) -- Patrickov (talk) 16:32, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Here is my opinion:

  • A transport network should denote a group of routes, usually in the same geographical area, where the individual routes behave the same / simiarly in order to form a network, for example, you can use the same kinds of tickets / payment methods, you can expect a similar look and feel and coherent branding (including sub-brands), the rules and regulations are the same across the network, and there is a single point of entry for passenger information. A bunch of uncoordinated independent routes therefore don't form a network.
  • For the green minibuses, they are coordinated by the Transport Department into 3 networks, so the existing network=* tags are appropriate. Tendered ferries are also the same.
  • For the shared taxis, they are basically independent and completely unregulated. Dropping the network=* tag is reasonable and maybe we can set designation=公共小型巴士 Public Light Bus.
  • Kaito, cross-border coaches and cross-border ferries are uncoordinated operations as well, similar to shared taxis.
  • For the integrated MTR system, the Urban Lines, Light Rail, Buses and NP360 have to be in different networks as they have completely different ticketing rules. Using the same reasoning, Airport Express should also be separate from the urban lines as well, but legally the term MTR includes urban lines and Airport Express (but not Light Rail, Buses or anything else).
  • The most complicated is franchised buses. Clearly putting all of them in the same network doesn't work (as network=* and route=* should be a unique identifier of the route), but there are at least 3 methods to put them into networks. There are no integrated ticketing so using the gold-standard method doesn't work.
 1. by franchises (KMB, LWB, Citybus franchise 3, Citybus franchise 2, NLB)
 2. by geography (Hong Kong Island, Kowloon, Airport & Lantau, Cross-harbour)
 3. by passenger information provision (KMB + LWB excluding Tai Po MTR Feeder Buses as one network, Citybus (and former NWFB) including non-franchised routes as one network, NLB as one)

Method 1 is the closest method to the legal consideration (official truth), while method 3 is the closest method to the practical consideration (ground truth) mentioned in my first bullet point.

    • Similar debates can be done on London Underground / London Overground / National Rail as well as in some aspects they are the same but in some other aspects they are different. There are different ticketing products valid on different subsets of the networks.
  • route_ref=* should only contains the route number, i.e. what is shown on the bus stop.
  • network=* should not be used on bus stop infrastructure if method 1 or 2 is used; It can be used if method 3 is used in consistent with the passenger information provision.
  • ref:kmb=* and ref:ctb=* should remain used for the internal reference numbers.

-Miklcct (talk) 13:47, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

2. Green minibus is a form of geographical administration. There is no linkage between them. It should use designation=* too.
5. Light Rail and the two MTR buses has integrated fare with the MTR. Unlike London's existing tagging, US commonly has the authority as the network=* .
5.2. Again, the geographical division is purely administrative, and it's influenced by Wikipedia or HKBus. There's no relationship between competing companies in Kowloon and NT.
  • The issue with route_ref=* is when there is a mix of different companies, as I mentioned at last above. On the contrary, this is inconsistent with ref:kmb=* and ref:ctb=* . If there is only one company, I feel it is reasonable to use ref=* directly. I use both ref=* and ref:*=* .

—— Kovposch (talk) 03:47, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

2. Do you think that green minibus routes don't belong to any network? In my opinion this is false. They have coherent route numbers assigned by the authority. Without a network, operators can pick whichever number they want, like in the deregulated England outside London.

5. There are no integrated fares between Light Rail / MTR Bus with Urban lines. You have clearly not used these networks. They only have interchange discount similar to between MTR urban lines and green minibuses. The rules are different, the fare tables are separate, you need to paid twice despite after discount the sum may be equal to one of the legs. You can't touch in at an urban line station and touch out at a light rail stop.

5.2 I think ref=* should be used for the ref of the actual operator (for example, the ctb value is used for a Citybus stop used by both companies). However ref:ctb=* also needs to be kept with the same value as well for query purpose for Citybus stops for all stops, regardless of who actually operate it, where Citybus routes call at.

The company of route_ref=* is irrelevant as the purpose is for mappers to mark the ground when the routes themselves are not mapped. It should only contain the route number but nothing else by definition.

---Miklcct (talk) 11:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

2. This is for management and clarity. There is no functional relationship between them. Would the mere existence of different names mean some services are partnered together? On the contrary, the different definitions of "Urban Lines" in MTR doesn't mean they are not in the same network=* either.
5. Do you really have to ask whether others have used them, and accuse others of this? Such a low quality attack. Touching twice is not a disqualifier of whether it provides an integrated service to the passenger. There can be out of station transfers, or the fares can have some special rules. The essence is they provide a complete experience to the public. The US examples presents a clearer picture on how they are used and grouped.
5.2.1. Mostly it looks unhelpful and incomplete to not have a ref=* . ref:*=* is necessary when there are different ones assigned, but there's also *_ref=* that may be used together with operator=* / network=* to match them. Ultimately, if ref:*=* is to be kept, it would be ideal to use ref:HK:*=* . There's no application of them anyway.
The motivation for route_ref=* is it is done in Key:route_ref#Belgian_operators together with ref:*=* .
—— Kovposch (talk) 07:49, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
My opinions as follows.
  • network=* should be as simple as possible.
  • Fare interchangeability is not the only point of consideration of network=*, although it can be one of them. Also, routes of different transport mode (route=* / route_master=*) but with same network=* can be considered as different. In this sense I don't see there's a problem of putting all of LRT and MTR buses under network=MTR.
  • I strongly oppose putting KMB and LWB routes together. They might be more relatable in the northwestern New Territories, but in Kowloon and Tseung Kwan O where there's no LWB it's simply weird. I even split Citybus and CityFlyer recently. That said, I think this is as much as they can be broken down.
  • The issues for minibus (both green and red) is that they are very much unmanageable because of their uniqueness. Currently a mixture of minibus=*, maxicab=* and network=* are used to distinguish them from the rest, but none of the tags are supported by mainstream editors and I bet most contributors get confused in making routes and stops of them. We need a unified and wholesome guideline on tagging Public Light Buses, not just the usage of one or two tags.
  • For other modes of transport if they do not make up a coherent network maybe the easiest way is to just scrap the tag altogether.
  • Let's keep route_ref=* exclusively for what's shown on bus stops.
—— Patrickov (talk) 17:57, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
3. What does "together" mean though? My thinking is brand=* LWB + network=* with KMB + LWB. The reason is not solely about transfer discounts, or service coverage. The app and communications matters too. However for this matter, you can still transfer between LWB, and KMB routes in Kowloon and TKO; as well as HKI. The discount exists, irrespective of how many passengers use it.network=* of Citybus in my view will have brand=* Citybus, Cityflyer, or Rickshaw Bus. I'm open to Airport Express being treated as a different brand=* in the network=* MTR.
5. Yes, that's what I'm calling for. And use eg designation=* instead.
6. I'm not talking what's in route_ref=* , but whether route_ref=* or route_ref:*=* should be used in the first place. My question stems from the use of ref:*=* , while route_ref=* isn't suffixed. I support unsuffixed for simplicitly in most cases, but there can be some consistency, and using both (when needed) is another possible option.
—— Kovposch (talk) 05:53, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Why do you consider routes with different modes within one network as different? This certainly isn't the case in most continental European networks like BKK or HSL as they are the same. The same fares and ticket mediums are used for all modes of transport (bus, tram, metro, trolleybus) so they are truly integrated. This isn't the case of MTR urban lines and Light Rail (Tickets and fares are different. You can't buy a Light Rail ticket to use on the heavy trains. They both have separate publicity and network maps as well. These are all strong indicators of being in different networks). My network recommendations are based mainly from the European model, although in the case of London there are two parallel fare systems in use (paper and PAYG with different coverages) so they can't be used to define the network.

I have visited more than a dozen of countries in Asia and Europe and aware of the differences between them and Hong Kong.

---Miklcct (talk) 22:53, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

When I take LRT and change to Tuen Ma Line (or vice versa) I got fully refunded on the LRT trip. Same for MTR buses changing from / to MTR and LRT. I generally don't get such extent of refund if I take a bus or minibus to an MTR station and change MTR. To me this means MTR treats their different modes of transport integrated. The "different fare collection" is more like a technical limitation on the part of the paying medium (e.g. Octopus) instead of a deliberate barrier set up by MTR. Meanwhile, the different transport modes (route=* / route_master=*) already address their fundamental difference in the mapping perspective.
You have experiences in other countries (and from what I know you have probably emigrated) but so have I, although I mostly stay in shorter periods.
-- Patrickov (talk) 02:07, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

In both technical and practical terms, the change between Light Rail and Urban Lines are more like a normal interchange discount rather than fare integration. The change between East TST and TST is, instead, a fare integration due to not being able to set barriers.

There is a condition for the LRT / Urban lines discount that, only short journeys on the LRT (not more than 12 stops) are permitted. Compared to London, all DLR stations are treated the same as the Underground and Elizabeth line, both on paper and on Oyster with the same fare rules, despite the DLR is a light rail, Underground is a subway, Elizabeth line is a train even at some stations you need to tap out and in to change between modes.

If the relationship between LRT and Urban Lines are like between DLR and Underground, I'll support them being the same network=*, but that's not the case.

If we remove the knowledge and try to see the things from a visitor's perspective, in a European integrated network, you can buy one ticket to travel on different modes, which you can't do so between Urban Lines and LRT (think of non-PAYG payment methods). ---Miklcct (talk) 06:51, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

If you use strict whole journey fare integration as the criteria, it immediately fails at buses, where the logic can be interpreted as they have no network=* , being individual routes. The MTR (day) passes do allow you to travel unlimited on LR and MTR Buses.
If we ignore this aspect, the authority is used as the network=* in much of USA. Are they really all used with the reason being they have whole journey fare integration? (And does flat fare, or capping need to be considered?)
As I have been repeating, the requirement to validate tickets, tap card readers, or pass a gateline (especially for out-of-station transfers) shouldn't be a factor. If you have a pass or some type of tickets, you may not even need to do anything for some proof-of-payment systems.
—— Kovposch (talk) 13:06, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean by the authority? What's the authority of green minibus routes in Hong Kong?

My point is in the uniformity of rules. For example, you can take West Rail Line or Island Line or Tsuen Wan Line in the exact same way under the exact same rules and regulations, but Light Rail and Airport Express are different. You can also take KMB route 1 and KMB route 270A in the exact same way under the exact same rules as well. ---Miklcct (talk) 13:28, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

  1. Ok you claim to be well-versed around the world and dissing others of this, but don't understand what's a transit authority in USA. Or you can read my opening comment about the US examples. I invite you to use your expertise to determine whether they fit your concept of fare integration.
  2. There is none. My stance has been there should be no network=* for them.
  3. Buses do have different scale of fares for different service types though? What does " the exact same rules and regulations" entails? Does Shinkansen and Keisei Sky Access's Skyliner not in the network=* JR and Keisei because they have separate paid areas?

—— Kovposch (talk) 05:14, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

-- Why do you always point out the USA? I have no experience in the USA because I hate American imperialism and will never visit it as long as Hongkongers don't get visa free access. Everything in colonial Hong Kong is based on the British model so we should just copy what London does.

For buses, it is also debatable if there should be no network=* or not as there isn't any integration between bus routes in Hong Kong, but for passenger information purpose it is clearly that KMB+LWB is one, Citybus is another, NLB is the third.

For the final one, I'm not sure about the fare used on the Japanese networks you have mentioned. Using local example, I'd put all heavy lines (except airport express) into a single network right on the day of MTR-KCR merger rather than waiting for the paid area merger, as the PAYG fares were integrated from Day 1 onwards. -Miklcct (talk) 08:09, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

  1. Umm ok, what kind of response is this?... And you have discussed much on how London is different from HK, so why should their status quo be followed? UK or Germany mapping isn't always the best.
  2. Well then shouldn't Airport Express, Light Rail, and MTR Bus be in the same network=* as MTR Urban Lines based on communications and corporate image?

—— Kovposch (talk) 10:47, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Airport Express and Urban Lines are, in term of communications and corporate image, in the same network, despite not having fare integration; Light Rail, doubtful; MTR Bus, absolutely not. An MTR system map has all the urban lines and Airport Express, but not individual LR lines and no MTR Bus lines. Light Rail has a separate network map and buses have separate publicity as well. There are no problems for the network relation as the Light Rail network is a member of the MTR network alongside with heavy rail routes, in the same way how the network map is shown, but it poses difficulty in using the network tag.
In London, the Tube and DLR behave exactly the same. The same tickets are used (all tickets valid on the Tube are also valid on the DLR, and with the exception of a DLR-only ranger, the reverse is also true as well), but in terms of communications and corporate image, they are different networks. The status quo is to use different network=* tags. The Overground and Elizabeth line, in terms of TfL communications and corporate image, are different networks as well but in terms of National Rail publicity, they are no different to any other train companies like South Western Railway, that National Rail tickets can be used on these subject to their usual network-wide rules. These two were tagged in the past as separate network=*s but they have since been retagged as network=National Rail despite TfL wants to pretend otherwise.
The relation between MTR urban lines and Light Rail is like the relation between the Underground and Croydon trams. They are under the same authority and they don't have fare integration in the sense of they subject to the different fare rules, you can't buy a single journey ticket across the two, and you have to pay separately using PAYG. However, there are day passes which can be used on both systems. In London, they are also tagged as different network=*s as well.
Also please remember that route=* modes have absolutely no relevance. The transport mode (light rail, tram, subway, bus, etc) is the physical difference, which has no relevance in how they are operated and presented to passengers. It is even possible for the same route to be a bus route, a tram route and a trolleybus route as well but how to ride them is exactly the same.

——Miklcct (talk) 13:16, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

  1. LR and MTR Bus info can be checked in the same app. They are posted in the same social media page. 506 is numbered the same as a replacement, meaning they can be considered together. Maps and diagrams are mainly influenced by other factors. viz scale and readability. Some LR maps do show the full local Tuen Ma Line as a line together. Bus routes by their nature are not represented by or on maps together realistically and easily.
  2. The status quo you are describing is for London only. It doesn't need to be UK-centric. I have raised other examples on USA and Japan.

—— Kovposch (talk) 06:19, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hong_Kong/Transport/Public_transport&oldid=2595026"