[Talk-gb-westmidlands] NOVAM Viewer

[Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists)]

Peter Miller wrote:
>Sent: 10 September 2009 3:29 PM
>To: Christoph Böhme
>Cc: talk-gb-westmidlands at openstreetmap.org
>Subject: Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] NOVAM Viewer
>
>
>On 9 Sep 2009, at 22:06, Christoph Böhme wrote:
>
>> Hi!
>>
>> Ciarán Mooney <general.mooney at googlemail.com> schrieb:
>>
>>> I am trying to merge some bus stops on Penns Lane, Sutton Coldfield.
>>>
>>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.53496&lon=-
>1.81479&zoom=15&layers=B000FTF
>>>
>>> I have moved them all to the correct position. Some of them were
>>> spectacularly off, I was very surprised that the Naptan data was that
>>> bad!
>>>
>>> However on Xoff's little NOVAM viewer I can see they have changed
>>> colour to orange and they are incomplete, but I don't know why. What
>>> tags are they missing??
>>
>> I can only see one orange stop which is missing the shelter tag. Did
>> you manage to fix the other ones?
>>
>> The rules for the colouring of the bus stops are as follows:
>>
>> Bus stops should show up green if they have
>> 	a highway-tag [1]
>> 	AND a naptan:AtcoCode-tag
>> 	AND NO naptan:unverified-tag
>> 	AND NO naptan:verified=no
>> 	AND a 'route_ref' tag
>> 	AND a shelter tag.
>
>Ok, but why is the route_ref tag required? I don't intend to add route
>refs to the stops - I am expecting the software to pick that up from
>the associated routes. Can you remove that requirement or I might end
>up adding null route_ref tags just to make NOVAM useful to be ;)

When surveying in Brum all the route refs are on the bus stop signs. So
that’s why we put them on the stop (ie adding what it says on the ground).
It's also a lot easier to add the routes if you know which stops they go to
:-)

>
>I am not sure that the shelter tag should be essential. I have added
>it if there is a shelter and left it off if there is not. Could you
>represent in the symbol if it is a shelter, but not use shelter=yes/no
>as a requirement for the stop being green

Forcing the shelter to be yes of no I find a useful check for situations
where I added data some time ago and need to go back and wrap up
verification. But I agree, its not something that needs to be "required"

>
>
>>
>> A stop is considered a plain naptan stop (blue) if it has
>> 	NO highway-tag
>> 	AND a naptan:AtcoCode-tag
>> 	AND a naptan:unverified-tag OR a naptan:verified=no.
>
>But our import had highway=bus_stop turned on - it would be much more
>useful for most people to ignore that tag for this test.

I guess Christoph is going to need to deal with the West mids folks who have
the data imported without the bus_stop attribute and everyone else that
does.

>
>>
>> Plain OSM stops (yellow) must have
>> 	a highway-tag
>> 	AND NO naptan:AtcoCode.
>>
>Fine
>
>> And finally there is the concept of a physically not present stop
>> (grey). This is a bit unfinished as we have not really decided what to
>> do with these stops. At the moment a stop classifies as not physically
>> present if it has
>> 	NO highway-tag (to prevent it from showing up on the map)
>> 	AND a naptan:atcoCode-tag
>> 	AND a physically_present tag set to 'no'.
>
>This would be very useful to show

Yep, there are lots of customary stops in the NaPTAN data in housing estates
which don’t have any physical presence.

>>
>> All remaining stops are displayed as an orange stop. This is a bit of
>> catch-all which does not actually display merged stops but everything
>> that is not explicitely marked finished or *not* merged.
>>
>On the basis of the above comments all my stops are orange which is
>less that optimal!
>
>>> We could do with some more documentation! And then starting to
>>> publicise it maybe?
>>
>> A number of people started using it (at least I am constantly
>> receiving
>> error reports when people try to use the not yet implemented
>> functions).
>>
>> After talking to Brian last Thursday I have decided to not develop the
>> actual merger any further as merging can easily be done with josm.
>> Also, things like stop areas add lots of complexity to the merging
>> process and it would be difficult to implement this all. So, I will
>> concentrate on improving the viewer which seems to be very helpful.
>
>That sounds good. I found the 'merge' and save buttons rather scary
>and wasn't sure if I had merged things or not, and if so how it knew
>my user name etc. Personally, a straight viewer seems to be the best
>tool. I would click on a stop expecting to see details of its tagging
>and the icon would disappear for something to do with merging I later
>realised.
>

+1, viewing only is fine for me.


Cheers

Andy

>
>Regards,
>
>
>
>
>Peter
>
>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Christoph
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list
>> Talk-gb-westmidlands at openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list
>Talk-gb-westmidlands at openstreetmap.org
>http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands