[Talk-transit] catching up
peter.miller at itoworld.com
Sat Jan 10 15:49:22 GMT 2009
On 10 Jan 2009, at 14:58, Thomas Wood wrote:
> 2009/1/10 Peter Miller <peter.miller at itoworld.com>:
>> With regard to bus stops then I think the NaPTAN import will be a
>> exercise in sorting some of the tagging issues. I would encourage the
>> use of namespaces for some purposes - for example I suggest we have a
>> 'naptan:' namespace to hold specific data that we imported from
>> in its original format and then use simple tags for the name OSM
>> concepts (a bit like was achieved with Tiger). For example NaPTAN has
>> three elements for the stop name 'Locality', 'Common Name' and
>> 'Indicator' which can be used in different ways to construct a useful
>> name in different circumstances. We might want to store that raw
>> information as 'naptan:locality' 'naptan:common_name' and
>> 'naptan:indicator'. From these will will then agree how to
>> construct a
>> string to put in the 'name=' tag.
>> Before getting stuck into the NaPTAN import itself can we make sure
>> that everyone who wants to be part of it is subscribed to this
>> list? I
>> will ask the people who have told me they are interested and also the
>> people who have expressed interest on the NaPTAN page. Anyone else?
>> Can I suggest people put out invites of their own national lists. I
>> will invite Joe Hughes.
> Regarding NaPTAN, I've begun reading their data schema and have tried
> to start a 'tag mapping' wiki page, so we can assign NaPTAN's data
> elements to tags.
> My notation may be a bit hard to follow in places, I've tried to
> expand out their XML structure, but it probably isn't required since
> anybody creating a converter would be referring to the schema anyway..
> I have a moderate interest in this, but will be unable to put much
> serious effort into it until the end of the month. (Winter exam
Good work. I will go thought it at some point and make my own
Initial comment. Can we please import the naptan fields using the
identical attribute unless there is a really good reason not to; for
example AtcoCode should be imported into naptan:AtcoCode rather than
naptan:id. The reason for this is to avoid confusions (there are about
6 'ids' for the stop, platecodes, privatecodes and naptancodes all of
which will be treated by someone as the 'id'.
I don't think many people will use the raw attributes a lot. I assume
we will populate other more normal fields from them so it doesn't
matter that they are a little verbose.
When the NaPTAN Attribute name is Description/CommonName etc, we could
possible drop the Description/ for the main name (and most only have
one I think). If there are more than one then we can construct a more
complex name. So the main CommonName would be naptan:CommonName, not
Let us know how you get on - I see that you are still plugging away at
> Thomas Wood
More information about the Talk-transit