[Talk-GB] NaPTAN Data

[Chris Hill]

I requested the import for Hull and East Yorkshire (areas were only 
imported when requested). I then spent a lot of time surveying the stops 
in Hull and most of the stops in East Yorkshire. The data quality was 
patchy - I don't think we should rely on it with checks. I wrote a few 
blog posts about the process, here's one with a summary for hull: 
https://chris-osm.blogspot.com/2009/11/last-stop-in-hull.html

As far as I can tell no one has resurveyed any of this data in the past 
ten years. A handful of new stops were added in a new housing estate. I 
was contacted by a someone from a local bus company about amending the 
stops and adding bus routes, but nothing came of it.

My feeling about imports in general is that they MUST be curated and 
checked otherwise we risk propagating poor quality data. If you reimport 
data it is important that hand-checked and corrected data must not be 
overwritten by the import.

-- 
cheers
Chris Hill (chillly)

On 15/02/2021 20:34, Jay Turner wrote:
> I have a few questions regarding the 2009 NAPTAN import.
>
> On the wiki <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/NaPTAN/Import>it 
> states: /"The Department required that the official identifier for 
> each feature ("atcocode" in the case of a bus stop) is included in the 
> imported data to allow the movement of these features to be tracked 
> over time and for updates to potentially be added in the future. We do 
> have this as a tag on imported bus stops."
>
> /
> Sadly, much of the UK hasn't been touched since the NaPTAN data was 
> imported. (82202 <https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/13Gq> / 230474 
> <https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/naptan:AtcoCode?filter=nodes>) 35%
> 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 want to know if it's possible to reimport/mass update NaPTAN data 
> from the latest set of information*. 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.
>  - `public_transport=*` because... well yeah. We have that now. We 
> didn't in 2009.
>  - `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./
> /
>
> *A lot has changed since 2009, we now have tools to help us find and 
> spot data issues on the ground such as StreetComplete*. There's a 
> discussion on GitHub about doing something with these tags to help 
> verify it on the ground. That can be found here: 
> https://github.com/streetcomplete/StreetComplete/issues/2566 
> <https://github.com/streetcomplete/StreetComplete/issues/2566>
>
> TL;DR: I think we need to mass update NaPTAN data regularly and use 
> StreetComplete or MapRoulette to verify the import and reduce the 
> count of `naptan:verified=no`.
>
> FYI, I think the correct tagging for verified is `naptan:verified=yes` 
> - I know some people delete the tag.
>
> Thank you for reading my incoherent ramble,
> JayTurnr
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/e7fc5885/attachment.htm>