[Talk-GB] More NaPTAN Counties Uploaded - Bristol and Cheshire East
peter.miller at itoworld.com
Tue Sep 15 09:48:24 BST 2009
On 15 Sep 2009, at 08:36, Thomas Wood wrote:
> Sorry for the delay in getting back, the end of last week was marred
> by not being able to get online.
> Anyway, I have now imported West Yorkshire (more on this in a bit),
> Torbay and Thurrock.
> W.Yorks caused me a lot of problems:
> 1) naptan:Notes was populated, often with strings greater than 255
> characters long. I hadn't counted on such verbose descriptions, so had
> to include a check for it.
> 2) They seem to use * as a null field representation, rather than the
> single space or -, which I was already filtering out. I didn't notice
> this until the data was imported.
> 3) The code I had to parse out the local_ref from the Indicator field
> was broken, truncating the last two digits off all the W.Yrks
> local_refs (which are a subset of the AtcoCode, incidentally)
> To solve issues 2 and 3, I had to fix the script and then do a messy
> 'patch import', this is why all the W.Yrks data is showing as version
> 2, rather than the standard version 1 for objects.
> *** Those who are doing analysis of edits to the data should take note
> of this. ***
I had a quick look at Wakefield and noticed a row of stops misaligned
with the road (particularly Kirkgate) and wondered if NaPTAN or OSM
I created a KML file from OSM Mapper for the area to compare what OSM
had with Google maps and photography which confirmed that the roads in
OSM are incorrectly alligned. (of course this is not a data source for
correction, only a way of cross-checking to see if there is a problem)
Panning round a little is pretty informative and shows areas where the
GPS signal was not good and the road alignment is therefore
siginificantly off, but also shows one place where OSM is more up-to-
date than Google (around Marsh Way which has recently been diverted to
avoid a new shopping centre) and of course OSM has footpaths and
bridlepaths etc as well.
I then created one for central Birmingham which is significantly
better, but there are still some significant deviations.
> 2009/9/11 Mark Williams <mark.666 at blueyonder.co.uk>:
>> Peter Miller wrote:
>>> On 10 Sep 2009, at 21:00, Mark Williams wrote:
>>>> When I voted for Essex I had hoped that all of Essex might turn up,
>>>> but as far as I can see it's excluded Thurrock, a little unitary
>>>> authority in the S.W. corner - which is, naturally, the bit I
>>> To be clear, the import request log is by administrative county.
>>> Thurrock unfortunately for you is only in the ceremonial county of
>>> Essex, for administrative purposes it is a separately place. If
>>> you add
>>> your signature to Thurrock in the list then I am sure it will be
>> Hmm. Done.. I wish I'd known earlier that it wasn't included though,
>> because I'm going to have moved before it gets much attention. Oh
>> I was a bit confused by relations poking into Thurrock which made it
>> look part-done, so there has been some misplaced patience happening!
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> Thomas Wood
More information about the Talk-GB