[Talk-GB] XAPI lagging behind by days?

Tom Chance tom at acrewoods.net
Wed Mar 24 07:58:08 GMT 2010


That all sounds good, though if we add stops to route relations do they
really need route_ref?

Tom

On Mar 23, 2010 10:26 PM, "Christoph Böhme" <christoph at b3e.net> wrote:

Tom Chance <tom at acrewoods.net> schrieb:

> On 23 March 2010 13:20, Christoph Boehme <christoph at b3e.net> wrote: > > >
Well, I just updated t...
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20100324/f6a643f4/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Talk-GB mailing list