[Talk-GB] NaPTAN Data

[Jay Turner]

Hi Ken,

I like this approach.
To you have a tutorial on how to do this? I'm unfamiliar with OSMCha

Jay Turner

On Tue, 9 Mar 2021, 09:51 Ken Kilfedder, <spiregrain_osm at ksglp.org.uk>
wrote:

> Hi Jay and Spike,
>
> After reading this thread it occurred to me that StreetComplete has
> several questions about bus stops - whether they have a shelter; whether
> they have a bench, etc.    If there are answers to these questions in the
> database, that strongly implies that someone has been there, and confirmed
> the location.
>
> So, as an experiment, I used OSMcha to find all the changesets I ever
> contributed to StreetComplete bus stop challenges, and set them to
> naptan:verified=yes with a check_date set to the date of the last
> StreetComplete-sourced change (which might not have been by me).   I also
> set a source:naptan:verified for posterity.
>
> Happily, these were all bus stops I have a passing familiarity with.
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/100491768
>
> If you care about naptan:verified tags, this might be an approach to
> safely armchair-mapping a few.
>
> ---
> https://hdyc.neis-one.org/?spiregrain
> spiregrain_osm at ksglp.org.uk
>
>
> On Sat, 27 Feb 2021, at 10:52 AM, Jay Turner wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> There's talk about depreciating naptan: verified in favour for
> check_date:*=*
>
> I'd suggest check_date:naptan:AtcoCode=* or check_date:naptan:NaptanCode=*
> dependent on what's displayed. (As that varies regionally)
>
> The message is here:
> https://github.com/streetcomplete/StreetComplete/issues/2566#issuecomment-787049474
>
> Feedback requested
>
> J
>
> On Wed, 24 Feb 2021, 22:32 Silent Spike, <silentspike100 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 8:38 PM Jay Turner <jaynicholasturner at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> 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`.
>
> FYI, I think the correct tagging for verified is `naptan:verified=yes` - I
> know some people delete the tag.
>
>
> The original import surveying guidelines actually say to delete the tag
> which is likely why it's 95% of the values:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/NaPTAN/Surveying_and_Merging_NaPTAN_and_OSM_data
>
> I only know this because I did a deep dive into those wiki pages back when
> I was planning my more recent Aberdeen import.
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 8:38 PM Jay Turner <jaynicholasturner at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> *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;
>
>
> It's certainly possible to join existing  naptan:AtcoCode  tagged
> features to the NaPTAN dataset and apply tags based on that. I
> originally intended to update the script I wrote for the import to do
> exactly that, but never got round to it. As for the extra tags, there's an
> old thread on this list from when I proposed my import where some
> insightful discussion of the tags to import took place. In the end I
> imported less than the original import because bloating OSM elements with
> tags from another data set is not desirable when the identifiers (primary
> keys) serve as a link. However, I think your proposed tags are reasonable
> and more generally applicable to OSM.
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20210309/f10d415e/attachment-0001.htm>