[Talk-transit] NaPTAN bus stops

Peter Miller peter.miller at itoworld.com
Sat Aug 22 09:21:06 BST 2009


On 21 Aug 2009, at 17:13, Chris Hill wrote:

> Roger Slevin wrote:
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> I can confirm that the Department for Transport would be supportive  
>> of any way in which we (and the local editors who maintain NaPTAN  
>> data as best they can) can get the feedback from OSM contributions  
>> to improve data accuracy.  I will be happy to discuss how best this  
>> can be done – but I suggest that you and others on this list are  
>> much better placed to propose a method that works within the  
>> framework of OSM.
>>
>> Roger
> [snip]
>>
>> I have reported the faults I have found via the professional  
>> service we run for the DfT for the purpose (http://www.itoworld.com/static/naptan 
>> ). I suggest that the DfT/Traveline might consider making this  
>> interface available to OSM mapping people to do the same or opening  
>> up a public version.
>>
>> It will be useful in time to run a comparison between the current  
>> NaPTAN and the current OSM and produce reports of where they are  
>> diverging. We would need the permission of the department to take a  
>> cut of the NaPTAN data before each run but I think they would be  
>> supportive.
>>
> Sorry for the last post - finger trouble.
>
> So it seems that feeding back to NaPTAN would be good since they are  
> interested in these improvements.  As such we need to find all of  
> the differences, including position changes.  This still leaves us  
> with the question: do we amend the naptan: tags or add our own to  
> show the changes?  What did the West Midlands guys do?

Thinking about this.

I believe that we are of the opinion that the naptan tags are useful  
but only relevant to the UK and I don't think anyone is suggesting  
that an import of data from Portland or Washington DC should use these  
NaPTAN tags. So, do we need tags in the real OSM namespace tags for  
all the main elements of NaPTAN that we need to use (for example  
bearing from naptan:bearing, indicator from naptan:indicator and  
local_ref from naptan:ATCO_code?). In some cases these will be copies  
of the naptan namespace data for the UK. For other imports it might  
using GTFS or other formats might use ia GTFS namespace for the  
imported data and then the same tags as for NaPTAN for the main OSM  
tags.

If that is the case then we should leave the naptan information alone  
and only adjust the OSM tags. The only problem is that some of those  
fields are not current populated or even defined in OSM (for example  
bearing).

For now I have changing the NaPTAN fields where I consider that they  
are wrong because we can spot that sort of thing in an refresh import  
of NaPTAN.

For a future 'refresh import' of NaPTAN the rule could be that we  
replace the data in the NaPTAN namespace (noting any changes in a log  
that is made available to the local community) and then notice where  
there are conflicts between OSM changes and official changes within  
the tags in the OSM namespace. Where the NapTAN data has changed but  
the OSM tags still match the naptan tags then the OSM tags can be  
updated, Where the OSM tags are no longer the same as the NaPTAN tags  
then that would be a 'conflict' and would need to deal with manually.

If this is what we want then we should get it onto the wiki.



Regards,



Peter



>
> Cheers, Chris
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-transit mailing list
> Talk-transit at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-transit/attachments/20090822/be0c3060/attachment.html>


More information about the Talk-transit mailing list