[Talk-transit] catching up
peter.miller at itoworld.com
Sun Jan 11 09:09:57 GMT 2009
On 11 Jan 2009, at 03:31, Thomas Wood wrote:
> 2009/1/10 Peter Miller <peter.miller at itoworld.com>:
>> On 10 Jan 2009, at 16:35, Thomas Wood wrote:
>>> 2009/1/10 Peter Miller <peter.miller at itoworld.com>:
>>>> On 10 Jan 2009, at 14:58, Thomas Wood wrote:
>>>>> 2009/1/10 Peter Miller <peter.miller at itoworld.com>:
>> Unfortunately the official standards do balloon. Some of the fields
>> will not
>> be populated, and some are not very exciting for us.
>>> I'm wondering how the London bus
>>> stop scheme fits into all this.
>> The letter 'C' should be in Indicator'
> The schema they give the fantastic example of "100 yards from Town
> Hall", so TfL are obviously using this in their own manner.
> Any idea how its being used outside of London? The current (not
> required) status set by Hubne should be changed...
Sometimes it if really verbose like that and sometimes is it nice and
short. I think the versose descriptions are now discouraged. The main
words I would hope to find in their are a single letter or Bay X,
Stand X, or adj, opp, at, near (all of these are used in association
with a landmark or street in another field. Also o/s 42 giving a
house number of a nearby house.
Do remember that NaPTAN is a Database created from 140+ different
authorities all of whom had their own home grown systems before their
are a central database or any national standard and we probably need
to see the data before going much further with this. One of the things
that professions are interested in is how the OSM community uses the
data and what changes they make - I do think that we may wish to weed
out the long indicators. Google use this database and us the short
ones directly on Google Maps, but dump the long ones and make
something up for themselves automatically.
>> I suggest we do a first pass where we extract the core information
>> and then
>> we can do a second pass at some point in the future and get all the
>> out of it. I will add a comment to each field in the page you have
>> constructed to say if I think it is normally populated and if we
>> bother with it.
> Would this comply with the DfT's requirement for the source data to be
> deleted after import?
I am sure they would be happy with us doing to passes over a few
months. We need to introduce ourselves to them early next week.
> We definitely need an idea of which parts of the schema are actually
> populated. The schema gives plenty of places for data to be possibly
> duplicated and thus inconsistant.
> (For example, I'm thinking of: StopClassification/StopType = AIR,
> which requires that StopClassification/OffStreet/Air/Entrance is
I can fill in some idea of what is likely to be populated. Also, there
will be no problem for us having the data before we make those detail
decisions. I suggest we propose a process where we have time to make a
number of passes at importing the data. I see no problem for us saying
we will retain the data for a few months while we make a number of
passes - lets talk to them and suggest what we would like to do.
>> Here is a Stop Point on Tower Bridge Road heading north. Here it is
>> on OSM
>> The information OSM has for this is just 'highway=bus stop'
>> NaPTAN has this stuff:
>> Full Name: The Borough, Abbey Street Tower Bridge Rd (---)
>> Location: 533405, 179535
>> Locality: The Borough
>> Common Name: Abbey Street Tower Bridge Rd
>> Indicator: ---
>> Stop Area: Abbey Street Tower Bridge Rd
>> Street: TOWER BRIDGE ROAD
>> Landmark: ---
>> Atco Code: 490003035N
>> Nat Gaz Id: E0034790
>> Stop Type: BCT - MKD
>> Admin Area: Greater London
>> Bearing: N
>> This list doesn't include the NaPTANCode which we should import and
>> some other minor or blank fields.
Correct. I am not sure why not, either our software is not handling it
properly yet or some other reason, but it will normally be there and
will normally be correct.
>> The Stop Point is part of a Stop Area together with the stop on the
>> side of the road.
> How would we model StopAreas in OSM, with relations?
I think relations would be the way to do this.
> I've finished the bulk of the schema transcription to the wiki, I've
> just got to finish the intricacies with the different types of OnRoad
> and OffRoad bus stops.
> I've also realised that most of the NPTG data is going to be..
> interesting, I'm not sure how much of it will be practically usable..
? are you saying is is boring data and we shouldn't bother? or that it
is good stuff but there might be difficulties with using it? Some
stuff may well be boring, but should we import all of it or make a
judgement call about what OSM users might want?
> (I also note that it gives its data sources too - SourceLocalityType
> in http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/NaPTAN/Tag_mappings#Locality I
> wonder whether the OS will like us if we import a large proportion of
> what is essentially their place gazetteer data :)
To be completely clear it is not an OS gazetteer and they have no
claim on it. The authorities used a different starting point to ensure
that they were free of restrictions or charges from any third party in
relation to its use! We definitively have permission to import it.
> Thomas Wood
More information about the Talk-transit