[Talk-transit] Naptan import

Peter Miller peter.miller at itoworld.com
Mon Jul 27 08:52:19 BST 2009

On 26 Jul 2009, at 22:14, Christoph Böhme wrote:

> Hi
> Peter Miller <peter.miller at itoworld.com> schrieb:
>> I am also aware that there is a 50K place gazetteer sitting there
>> untouched - last week I was adding villages in Norfolk by hand and
>> the data is sitting available in NPTG.
> I taught myself XSLT at the weekend and played a bit with the NPTG
> data. On http://www.mappa-mercia.org/nptg/ you can find some html- 
> pages
> which show the hierarchies of and adjacencies between the localities  
> in
> the NTPG data.
> I also created a copy of the NOVAM viewer and changed it to display
> NTPG data instead of bus stops:
> http://www.mappa-mercia.org/cgi-bin/nptg.wsgi/viewer.html

Great stuff, and clearly there are many additional place-names in NPTG  
that are not in OSM a present in many parts of the county. I checked  
North Norfolk and bits of Scotland and there are a good number of  
additional places.

> I have not changed any of the texts/images yet, so the localities will
> be displayed as bus stops :-). I will try to import an excerpt of  
> place
> names from OSM tomorrow so that we can compare both data sets.
> From what I have seen so far an import should not be too difficult.  
> The
> only difficulties I expect are the hierarchies and the classification
> of the localities.
> Does anyone know the current way to tag hierarchies of places? I had a
> look at the wiki and there seem to be two approaches: is_in and
> relations. With the addition of actual borders there is also the
> possibility of defining hierarchies purely geometrical.
> The location classifications in the NPTG seem to be relatively coarse.
> Everything below a parish is either a "New Entry" (Add) or a Locality.
> We need to see how this can be mapped to POI types in OSM.

SourceLocalityType is, I think, information about where the data came  
from in the first place into NPTG and is not relevant for our  
purposes, and certainly into the classification field.

The LocalityClassification field should be more useful and should  
contain city, town, village, hamlet, suburb, urbancentre, place of  
interest, other, or unrecorded. I am not sure how well this field is  
populated - possibly it is not well populated at all. UrbanCentre can  
possibly be ignored.  The field may be well populated in some parts of  
the country and not in other. I am not sure how much NPTG is used for  
Points of Interest. There is a POI model in NPTG but possibly we treat  
this separately or not at all or import the data as invisible to start  
with. My main interest is the locality names and the main technical  
job will probably be to spot duplicates with what is in OSM already.

See page 69 in the NaPTAN and NPTG scheme guide for more details of  
the formatting.

>> Do you need help with the NaPTAN import or are you just about ready
>> to do the work? Do we need to set up a wiki page where people can
>> request imports for their authority or are we going to do it without
>> that?

It would be really really good to get NaPTAN in and in soon. There are  
people keen to get on with sorting the data out in their areas who are  
sitting on their hands at present, the professional transport  
community is watching what is happening closely, and there are also  
possibly other datasets from UK authorities that could come our way  
when we have completed this one.

> I am happy to continue working on the NPTG import if Thomas does not
> mind.

My vote is to get on with it - the NPTG and NaPTAN imports are  
different enough that they can be handled separately. If Thomas  
focuses on the NaPTAN import (or hands it over to someone) and you do  
the NPTG then I think we will get there faster.

Would it be worth creating a NPTG Import wiki page and an NPTG Import  
user to do the actual import - ie, keep the documentation and audit  
trail for the two imports separate?



> 	Christoph

More information about the Talk-transit mailing list