[Talk-transit] Naptan import

Thomas Wood grand.edgemaster at gmail.com
Wed Jul 29 20:46:11 BST 2009


2009/7/29 Christoph Böhme <christoph at b3e.net>:
> Peter Miller <peter.miller at itoworld.com> schrieb:
>
>> On 27 Jul 2009, at 22:14, Christoph Böhme wrote:
>>
>> > Hi
>> >
>> > "Roger Slevin" <roger at slevin.plus.com> schrieb:
>> >
>> >> 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.
>> >
>> > So, it looks like we will not have any classification information.
>> > Unless we just want to import the plain names this will complicate
>> > the import a bit as we have to somehow map the locations to OSM
>> > place- types.
>> > At the moment I am having three ideas how we could do this:
>> >
>> > Based on the parent relationship we could guess if a location might
>> > be a suburb or village.
>> >
>> > Many places have wikipedia entries (even villages). If we can manage
>> > to automatically look the entries up and extract the relevant
>> > information (population size) from the info box we could probably
>> > classify a lot of places.
>> >
>> > The landsat data might give us some hints about the size of places.
>> > We just need to find a way to retrieve this information
>> > automatically :-)
>> >
>> > Alternatively we could just invent a value for unclassified places
>> > and wait for people to classify the places.
>> >
>>
>> It seems that the NPTG data is less useful than it could have been
>> because the the lack of classification data. We do of course also
>> have access to locality names from other sources including NPE maps
>> for places that are more than 50 years old and our eye-balls.
>
> Despite the lack of classification the NPTG data can still easily be
> matched with the data already in OSM. So, while not being able to
> import the whole dataset we could still add some data to existing
> places if we want. The NPTG has the following to offer:
>
> - Administrative Area
> - Atco Area Code
> - NPTG District in parts of the county (do these districts have any
>  relation with ceremonial/administrative counties?)
> - NPTG locality reference
> - Alternative names (e.g. welsh names)

NaPTAN includes this too, I was going to check whether the
functionality was required as we started on Welsh/Scottish regions, I
can't remember the reason for not implementing it immediately other
than awkwardness of the way I was parsing.

> - Short names
> - Qualifiers for duplicate names
>
> Do you think we should import any of this? Especially when taking
> the NaPTAN import into acconut the Atco Area Code or NPTG locality
> references might become handy, I reckon.

I'm not currently handling the NPTG locality ref. If it's deemed
useful, we can probably do something with it.

> Talking of the NaPTAN import: The NPTG data also contains polygons for
> the Plusbus Zones. This data is self-contained and can easily be
> imported. They could be either imported as ways tagged with their zone
> code and their name or we could create an additional relation that
> holds all the bus stops which are part of the zone as well. The latter
> would, of course, only be necessary if there are bus stops within the
> polygon which are not part of the zone or vice versa.

I tried to create a relation for plusbus zone stops from the NaPTAN
data but there were simply too many - we quickly hit the OSM relation
member maximum.

>> Possibly we just provide NPTG data as a useful 'free' data overlay
>> for creating localities in OSM in association with data from NPE but
>> don't spend too long trying to do an automatic import of that data.
>
> I am of the same opinion. Most of the missing places in OSM are small
> hamlets, villages and suburbs and it is going to be really difficult to
> automatically distinguish these automatically. So, I will rather improve
> the NPTG viewer a bit so that it does not display NPTG places which are
> already in OSM anymore. This tool can then be used as a guide to find
> umapped places.
>
>> You mention matching localities up with Wikipedia. I see no
>> licensing issues with using data from Wikipieda as far as I am aware
>> btw. Would be great to tie places up with Wikipedia and possibly also
>> with woeids (http://developer.yahoo.com/geo/geoplanet/) but that
>> could be something for later.
>
> We should keep this in mind. Although, I am not sure if it makes much
> sense to add tags to OSM in a completely automated process as this
> information can easily be applied when its needed.
>
> Cheers,
> Christoph
>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>>
>>
>> Peter
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Do you have any other ideas?
>> >
>> >     Cheers,
>> >     Christoph
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Talk-transit mailing list
>> > Talk-transit at openstreetmap.org
>> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-transit mailing list
>> Talk-transit at openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-transit mailing list
> Talk-transit at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
>



-- 
Regards,
Thomas Wood
(Edgemaster)




More information about the Talk-transit mailing list