[Talk-transit] Naptan import

Roger Slevin roger at slevin.plus.com
Tue Jul 28 23:17:37 BST 2009


Christoph

Sorry - I now realise I shouldn't have referred to "inactive" localities ...
this is something I can see on the editor system for NPTG, but the export
only shows the active localities ... the records of the inactive ones are
not included in the standard XML file.  I would need to check whether it is
possible to get an extract from NPTG which includes inactive records (or
only comprises the inactive ones) - but that is a question I will only ask
if someone can suggest that some useful purpose could be served by having
access to that data.

Roger

-----Original Message-----
From: Christoph Böhme [mailto:christoph at b3e.net] 
Sent: 28 July 2009 22:54
To: roger at slevin.plus.com; Public transport/transit/shared taxi related
topics
Cc: roger at slevin.plus.com; 'Peter Miller'
Subject: Re: [Talk-transit] Naptan import

Roger,

thank you for your explanations.

"Roger Slevin" <roger at slevin.plus.com> schrieb:

>  Although NPTG was originally for public transport purposes, we
> stressed at all times that a locality should be listed even if it has
> no public transport - but we know that some local editors have
> probably erred towards marking some unserved rural hamlets as
> "inactive". 
> 
> All "inactive" localities should still be in the data - so hamlets
> which are missing may be in NPTG, but marked as "inactive".  

What would an inactive entry look like in the data? The xml schema does
not seem to define any elements/attributes for inactive entries.

> However they may simply never have been in the source data - and no
> one to date has recognised the need to add them to NPTG.  It would be
> interesting to see what localities OSM holds in its data which are
> not included in NPTG (as well as the reverse of this) if that is
> possible.

I created two tables of OSM- and NTPG-only places:

http://www.mappa-mercia.org/nptg/nptg-only-localities.csv.gz
http://www.mappa-mercia.org/nptg/osm-only-localities.csv.gz

I considered a place to be only in one dataset if no place from the
other dataset exists in its proximity which has the same name.
Proximity was defined as an euclidian distance less than 0.3 between
the lat/lon positions of the places (I don't know how this relates to
kilometres/miles). Since the OSM data contains some nodes with
place-tags that have nothing with actual places, I only included nodes
with a place-value of either locality, island, suburb, hamlet, village,
municipality, town or city. I also excluded place=farm.

	Christoph





More information about the Talk-transit mailing list