[Talk-transit] Naptan import
roger at slevin.plus.com
Mon Jul 27 09:21:35 BST 2009
Locality Classification was added as a possible "nice to have" to the
version 2 schema but it has not been populated, and no guidance has been
created to indicate how this field should be used (save for a table of
permitted values). There is no classification data in NPTG other than that
which comes from the source - and that is only there because it could be ...
I would not recommend its use as it is flaky, and offers nothing in respect
of newly created locality entries in the Gazetteer.
NPTG is NOT a POI directory - and whilst there are some incorrectly created
localities for POIs we are seeking to get them removed unless they genuinely
define a locality (so the only ones that are appropriate are those which
relate to large area POIs that do not sit happily within general-purpose
The data that is recognised as valid at present is only that which appears
in v2 CSV lists ... anything which is in the XML that is not in the CSV
output is almost certainly not populated and certainly should be ignored.
From: talk-transit-bounces at openstreetmap.org
[mailto:talk-transit-bounces at openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Peter Miller
Sent: 27 July 2009 08:52
To: Christoph Böhme
Cc: talk-transit at openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-transit] Naptan import
On 26 Jul 2009, at 22:14, Christoph Böhme wrote:
> 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-
> which show the hierarchies of and adjacencies between the localities
> the NTPG data.
> I also created a copy of the NOVAM viewer and changed it to display
> NTPG data instead of bus stops:
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
> 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
> 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.
> 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
>> 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
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
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?
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit at openstreetmap.org
More information about the Talk-transit