[Talk-GB] NaPTAN Data

Jez Nicholson jez.nicholson at gmail.com
Tue Feb 16 11:17:16 UTC 2021


I know that Transport.gov.uk were planning some more work on NaPTAN <->
OSM. I'll ask my contact whether it is still happening.

On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 9:32 AM Ed Loach <edloach at gmail.com> wrote:

> Jay wrote:
> > I have a few questions regarding the 2009 NAPTAN import.
>
> > Sadly, much of the UK hasn't been touched since the NaPTAN data was
> imported.
>
> To clarify, the whole dataset wasn't originally imported, only selected
> areas. See
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/NaPTAN/Request_for_Import
> although elsewhere on the wiki suggests Aberdeen has been done more
> recently
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/NaPTAN/Aberdeen
>
> > I don't really know how to analyse the data of the other 65% but I'll
> place a bet it's not in a great state. Additionally, 95% of all
> `naptan:verified` tags are `no`.
>
> I am one of those that removes the tag after a survey, but if I encounter
> a bus stop with a tag on and can align it better based on the aerial
> imagery we didn't have in 2009 I leave the tag value set to "no". Verified
> really requires a visit for things like determining whether there is a
> timetable case/raised kerb/shelter/bench/waste_basket and all those other
> attributes that are gathered when verifying the naptan location/stop
> name/bus stop type/status.
>
> > I want to know if it's possible to reimport/mass update NaPTAN data from
> the latest set of information.
>
> I'm not sure this is a good idea, at least nationwide. Essex was
> up-to-date as at fairly late last year (based on me having checked all the
> bus routes were up to date - a manual process of comparing the opendata to
> what was mapped in OSM, with a utility program I wrote to display the two
> sets of data side by side to help). I'm pretty sure the West Midlands are
> fairly up-to-date too (when checking bus routes near my parents house in
> Wolverhampton all the stops seemed to be there already - in Essex there
> were quite a few new ones that needed adding, such as where roads have been
> re-routed or new build housing estates have gone in).
>
> > Additionally, I propose a few extra tags;
> >  - `source:date=*` with the `ModificationDateTime` field within the
> NaPTAN datasets so we have a good idea of when the data was last touched.
>
> I would suggest naptan:RevisionNumber would be easier to use to be able to
> simply compare the values in OSM to Naptan to spot any that have changed
> easier.
>
> >  - `public_transport=*` because... well yeah. We have that now. We
> didn't in 2009.
>
> I have added this tag when updating bus route relations to PT v2.
>
> >  - `unsigned=yes` for bus stops with BusStopType=CUS because it's
> defined as "Unmarked stop (or only marked on the road). Point footprint.".
> Previously, these stops weren't tagged with highway=bus_stop and I think we
> should add those en-mass too. Leaving those tags off has led to confusion
> with mappers unfamiliar with NaPTAN and caused the nodes to be blindly
> deleted or merged into other objects.
>
> This can't be assumed. That is what CUS is supposed to mean, but I've
> encountered signed CUS stops and adding unsigned=yes or
> physically_present=no still really should require a survey. I know of one
> stop that remained part of a time-tabled bus route even though the road got
> permanently diverted and the old route where the stop was became a shared
> use cycle way (new stops were added on the new route for the road). I would
> be tempted to add public_transport=platform and leave
> highway=bus_stop/unsigned=yes for a survey. Similarly the naptan status of
> "del" might not mean physically removed, just no longer used. There are
> also bus stops I have encountered that exist on the ground and aren't in
> naptan (or are part of any current bus route, so probably last used before
> the database got computerised).
>
> You also need local knowledge. For example West Midlands stops (ATCOcode
> starting 4300) are labelled with the naptan Street Name *and* naptan Common
> Name field. In Essex it is just the Common Name field on the stops I have
> physically checked. Different styles might be used elsewhere.
>
> I would suggest updating the stops in your local area that were originally
> imported and still at version 1 (so not edited at all) should be fine. Any
> others should be compared manually to see what has changed. When I have
> added new stops I've only added the atcocode and naptancode tags (and type
> if not MKD, and status if not act), and naptan:verified=no to show they've
> not been physically surveyed, such as this stop that I surely must have
> caught on Mapillary at some point...
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6253620921 Looks like in 2015 it was
> only a raised kerb, but I'm sure it is marked with a post and flag these
> days. https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/Y_nhMUIUB9ja9HZ9KHkYPA - I'll have
> to revisit.
>
> Ed
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20210216/83132399/attachment.htm>


More information about the Talk-GB mailing list