[Talk-GB] XAPI lagging behind by days?

Seventy 7 seventy7 at operamail.com
Tue Mar 23 22:52:50 GMT 2010


What's happening with the imports at the moment, are they progressing?

North Yorkshire would be useful for me, well York and the area north as far as Thirsk anyway (~ 25 miles).

Regards,
Steve

 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Christoph Böhme" <christoph at b3e.net>
> To: "Tom Chance" <tom at acrewoods.net>
> Cc: "Public transport/transit/shared taxi related	topics" <talk-transit at openstreetmap.org>, talk-gb at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] XAPI lagging behind by days?
> Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 22:26:42 +0000
> 
> 
> Tom Chance <tom at acrewoods.net> schrieb:
> 
> > On 23 March 2010 13:20, Christoph Boehme <christoph at b3e.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Well, I just updated the Birmingham scheme two days ago to accept
> > > naptan:verified=yes, because Andy asked for it.
> > >
> > > Perhaps it makes sense to reorganise the schemes to have only one
> > > basic scheme which displays verification status, CUS and
> > > notes/errors and a number of specialised schemes building on top of
> > > the basic one for information that is not available everywhere like
> > > route references, shelter information and asset references.
> > >
> > >
> > That sounds sensible. The basic scheme would presumably be enough for
> > generalist mappers like me to be sure we're tidying NAPTAN up, without
> > needing all the transport geek data I've never heard of?
> 
> Yes, exactly. My current plan is to have four types of stops in the
> basic scheme:
> 
> 1. Non-NaPTAN stops: Stops without naptan:*-tags. Basically plain
>     old OSM bus stops.
> 2. Unverified NaPTAN stops: Stops from the NaPTAN import which
>     have a naptan:verified=no tag or which are missing the
>     highway=bus_stop tag.
> 3. Verified NaPTAN stops: Stops tagged as hightway=bus_stop and with
>     either no naptan:verified tag or a naptan:verified=yes tag.
> 4. CUS-stops: Stops with naptan:BusStopType=CUS because they are not
>     marked on the ground and cannot be verified.
> 
> Extended schemes would be:
> 
> 1. Stops with notes: Highlight stops with a note or naptan:error tag
> 2. Route information: Highlight stops which are missing the route_ref
>     tag.
> 3. Shelter and asset refs: Highlight bus stops which have shelter=yes
>     and no asset_ref or which have no shelter tag at all (this might be
>     quite Birmingham specific).
> 4. Anything else?
> 
> I suggest to keep the old schemes but rename them to the name of the
> public transport network they apply to (e.g. "Transport West Midlands"
> for Birmingham), since they are based on the amount of information that
> is available on the signs used by a particular network.
> 
> Best,
> Christoph
> 
> > Best,
> > Tom
> >
> > -- http://tom.acrewoods.net   http://twitter.com/tom_chance
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

>


-- 
_______________________________________________
Surf the Web in a faster, safer and easier way:
Download Opera 9 at http://www.opera.com

Powered by Outblaze




More information about the Talk-GB mailing list