Let the relevant community decide - in the West Mids we had a lot of exisiting bus stops so it made sense to have them imported as silent. It means a lot of work for us verifying and turning them on, but at least in JOSM we can differentiate between surveyed and imported bus stops - and it gets us to resurvey lots of areas which results in a much more accurate map. Agree with Andy that "Verified=No" is more intuitive than "Unverified=Yes". On CUS stops I still think, as a mapper, these should not be tagged as no marker exists on the ground, but I can see why the Public Transport people want to see them. Perhaps we should just tag them highway=bus_stop_customary? Could future public sector apps still parse these as bus_stop, thereby satisfying public transport aims, whilst not rendering to satisfy mapping aims?<br>
<br>I'm having some issues with HAR - presumably this is on hold until a later date.<br><br>Regards<br><br>Brian<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2009/6/29 Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ajrlists@googlemail.com">ajrlists@googlemail.com</a>></span><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Peter Miller wrote:<br>
>Sent: 26 June 2009 6:24 PM<br>
<div class="im">>To: Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists)<br>
</div>>Cc: 'Thomas Wood'; <a href="mailto:Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org">Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org</a>; talk-<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5">><a href="mailto:transit@openstreetmap.org">transit@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
>Subject: Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] [Talk-transit] NaPTAN and the new<br>
>PTtagging schema<br>
><br>
><br>
>On 26 Jun 2009, at 17:51, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote:<br>
><br>
>> Peter Miller wrote:<br>
>>> Sent: 26 June 2009 4:41 PM<br>
>>> To: Thomas Wood<br>
>>> Cc: <a href="mailto:Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org">Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org</a>; talk-<br>
><a href="mailto:transit@openstreetmap.org">transit@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
>>> Subject: Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] [Talk-transit] NaPTAN and the new<br>
>>> PTtagging schema<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> Your suggestions below make a lot of sense. I would however very much<br>
>>> encourage you to include customary stops because they do indeed<br>
>>> 'exist' even though there is no physical pole. Consider a road that<br>
>>> doesn't have a name plate but when you people who live on the street<br>
>>> what it is called they tell you. Does the street have a name or does<br>
>>> it not - I suggest we would agree that it does? If a tree falls in a<br>
>>> wood and there is no one to hear it did it make a sound etc.<br>
>>> Customary<br>
>>> stops can be confirmed by looking for physical marks of vehicles<br>
>>> stopping or people standing around on the grass, from information at<br>
>>> the stop opposite or from asking bus drivers. I would suggest that<br>
>>> for<br>
>>> now we believe NaPTAN.<br>
>><br>
>> These are easy to add in a final cleanup anyway, just by usage of<br>
>> the route.<br>
>> The problem with the NaPTan data is that there are loads of stops<br>
>> that are<br>
>> probably just not used at all, hence we leave them turned off<br>
>> (silent data).<br>
>> I agree that we could and probably should import customary stops but<br>
>> I don't<br>
>> think we should assume they are actual in-use stops and hence should<br>
>> leave<br>
>> them silent in the database until someone confirms and adds<br>
>> highway=bus_stop<br>
>><br>
>> For other areas of the country I think its fine (with the exception<br>
>> of CUS<br>
>> stops) to go ahead straight away and add the highway=bus_stop where<br>
>> there<br>
>> are few existing mapped stops. Ideally a post to the local uses in<br>
>> the area<br>
>> would confirm either way what they would like to do.<br>
><br>
>You seem to be putting out different messages in the two above<br>
>paragraphs. Are you saying you support the import of CUS stops or not.<br>
>Also are you suggesting that bus stops are set as 'real' (ie active)<br>
>stops.<br>
><br>
<br>
</div></div>Yes, lets import them but not with the highway=bus_stop on them. Then OSMers<br>
can switch them on if they are in use or leave/delete them as they see fit.<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
>Possibly Roger will have some views on how many unused stops there are<br>
>likely to be in the dataset. Looking at the Oct08 dataset there were<br>
>365,000 bus stops and 42,020 of them were unused at the time however<br>
>this doesn't necessarily mean that they don't exist, only that no<br>
>buses currently use them - in some cases they could be stops for<br>
>summer-only services. I suggest that we should include all bus stops<br>
>in the dataset regardless of use. We should removed stops that don't<br>
>physically exist if there is no sign of them on the ground. Customary<br>
>stops might need a visit to the friendly local bus operator who<br>
>probably has all the information in his head. Physically marked stops<br>
>can be checked by cruising the bus routes.<br>
><br>
>><br>
>> Beyond that the only bit of data I dislike from the original run is<br>
>> the<br>
>> unverified=yes tag. It would be better to change this to verified=no<br>
>> for<br>
>> future imports (and easy to swap in West Mids.)<br>
><br>
>sounds good<br>
>><br>
>> Otherwise my experience in Brum is generally good in that with the<br>
>> exception<br>
>> of location (which is 10m to 100m off at least 50% of the time) the<br>
>> NaPTAN<br>
>> data matches the data on the ground very well.<br>
>><br>
>The accuracy will vary across the county and will reflect the care<br>
>taken by each authority. I would expect it to be better in most places<br>
>but might be proved wrong!<br>
><br>
>Having a map that shows the bus stops would seem to be a good step to<br>
>getting it improved by doing a physical survey or asking bus drivers<br>
>to comment. If the data is hidden in the maps and not exposed it will<br>
>be harder to sort out. I vote for having the data introduced as fully<br>
>visisbly data but possibly we do it county by county. I am happy to be<br>
>an early recipient of data for Suffolk and I think Ed Loach is keen to<br>
>see the Essex data.<br>
<br>
</div></div>Agreed, but the decision needs to come from the community on the ground,<br>
just as we have done with the West Midlands.<br>
<br>
Cheers<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
Andy<br>
</font><div><div></div><div class="h5">><br>
><br>
><br>
>Regards,<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
>Peter<br>
><br>
><br>
>> I know Brian and others have documented a few oddities here:<br>
>> <a href="http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/NaPTAN_Error_Log" target="_blank">http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/NaPTAN_Error_Log</a><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Cheers<br>
>><br>
>> Andy<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>>><br>
>>> Traveline would strongly advocate for their inclusion so that OSM<br>
>>> links seamlessly to their journey planners.<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> Regards,<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> Peter<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> On 26 Jun 2009, at 16:21, Thomas Wood wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>>> 2009/6/24 Peter Miller <<a href="mailto:peter.miller@itoworld.com">peter.miller@itoworld.com</a>>:<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> On 24 Jun 2009, at 18:20, Thomas Wood wrote:<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>>> 2009/6/24 Peter Miller <<a href="mailto:peter.miller@itoworld.com">peter.miller@itoworld.com</a>>:<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> Can I suggest that we treat this import and any final tagging<br>
>>>>>>> as a<br>
>>>>>>> separate<br>
>>>>>>> issue on separate timeline from the NaPTAN import just so long as<br>
>>>>>>> no<br>
>>>>>>> important information in the NaPTAN DB is lost in the process.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Can you clarify what you meant by this?<br>
>>>>>> Is it essentially that we don't care about the new tagging schema<br>
>>>>>> and<br>
>>>>>> get on with the import?<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>>> Yes. I would suggest that to avoid trying to agree a new tagging<br>
>>>>> arrangement<br>
>>>>> in a hurry prior to the import and keep the two projects separate.<br>
>>>>> Firstly<br>
>>>>> we import the rest of NaPTAN as agreed in the original discussion,<br>
>>>>> and then<br>
>>>>> secondly we agree a harmonised tagging arrangement of some sort and<br>
>>>>> convert<br>
>>>>> all the data to this new format (including the NaPTAN import).<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> btw, did you mean this to be off-list? Feel free to copy the thread<br>
>>>>> to the<br>
>>>>> list if it was a mistake.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Regards,<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Peter<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Ok, then to get on with the import, we need to review the errors we<br>
>>>> made with the Birmingham trail, and to get their views on the data<br>
>>>> review process - was it a good idea to import things without the<br>
>>>> highway=bus_stop tag, to get people to add them themselves?<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> I think the one other outstanding issue is how we should represent<br>
>>>> the<br>
>>>> CUS stop types, at present in the 'active' tagging mode, they'll<br>
>>>> appear as fully-fledged highway=bus_stop nodes, like every other bus<br>
>>>> stop type, but with the addition of naptan:BusStopType=CUS, as (a<br>
>>>> rather obscure) indicator to the fact they may not exist.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> And then finally, we need to think about how we roll this out,<br>
>>>> county<br>
>>>> at a time is the most obvious step, I think we order the import<br>
>>>> based<br>
>>>> on requests on the transit list, followed by requests on talk-gb,<br>
>>>> with<br>
>>>> a target date to import the rest by.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> And on the technical front, I'm going to have to make sure that the<br>
>>>> import tools I'm using are 0.6-capable.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> I'm copying this over to the west-mids list so we can get their<br>
>>>> responses.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> --<br>
>>>> Regards,<br>
>>>> Thomas Wood<br>
>>>> (Edgemaster)<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>> Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list<br>
>>> <a href="mailto:Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org">Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
>>> <a href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands" target="_blank">http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands</a><br>
>><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org">Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands" target="_blank">http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>