[Talk-transit] NaPTAN and the new PT tagging schema

[Roger Slevin]

I agree with Peter's view on "Custom and Practice" (CUS) stops - they exist
... but they are not marked in the same way as MKD stops are marked.  But
they are real as far as the user is concerned!

Roger


-----Original Message-----
From: talk-transit-bounces at openstreetmap.org
[mailto:talk-transit-bounces at openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Peter Miller
Sent: 26 June 2009 16:41
To: Thomas Wood
Cc: Talk-gb-westmidlands at openstreetmap.org; talk-transit at openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-transit] NaPTAN and the new PT tagging schema


Your suggestions below make a lot of sense. I would however very much  
encourage you to include customary stops because they do indeed  
'exist' even though there is no physical pole. Consider a road that  
doesn't have a name plate but when you people who live on the street  
what it is called they tell you. Does the street have a name or does  
it not - I suggest we would agree that it does? If a tree falls in a  
wood and there is no one to hear it did it make a sound etc. Customary  
stops can be confirmed by looking for physical marks of vehicles  
stopping or people standing around on the grass, from information at  
the stop opposite or from asking bus drivers. I would suggest that for  
now we believe NaPTAN.

Traveline would strongly advocate for their inclusion so that OSM  
links seamlessly to their journey planners.


Regards,



Peter




On 26 Jun 2009, at 16:21, Thomas Wood wrote:

> 2009/6/24 Peter Miller <peter.miller at itoworld.com>:
>>
>> On 24 Jun 2009, at 18:20, Thomas Wood wrote:
>>
>>> 2009/6/24 Peter Miller <peter.miller at itoworld.com>:
>>>>
>>>> Can I suggest that we treat this import and any final tagging as a
>>>> separate
>>>> issue on separate timeline from the NaPTAN import just so long as  
>>>> no
>>>> important information in the NaPTAN DB is lost in the process.
>>>
>>> Can you clarify what you meant by this?
>>> Is it essentially that we don't care about the new tagging schema  
>>> and
>>> get on with the import?
>>
>
>> Yes. I would suggest that to avoid trying to agree a new tagging  
>> arrangement
>> in a hurry prior to the import and keep the two projects separate.  
>> Firstly
>> we import the rest of NaPTAN as agreed in the original discussion,  
>> and then
>> secondly we agree a harmonised tagging arrangement of some sort and  
>> convert
>> all the data to this new format (including the NaPTAN import).
>>
>> btw, did you mean this to be off-list? Feel free to copy the thread  
>> to the
>> list if it was a mistake.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>>
>> Peter
>
> Ok, then to get on with the import, we need to review the errors we
> made with the Birmingham trail, and to get their views on the data
> review process - was it a good idea to import things without the
> highway=bus_stop tag, to get people to add them themselves?
>
> I think the one other outstanding issue is how we should represent the
> CUS stop types, at present in the 'active' tagging mode, they'll
> appear as fully-fledged highway=bus_stop nodes, like every other bus
> stop type, but with the addition of  naptan:BusStopType=CUS, as (a
> rather obscure) indicator to the fact they may not exist.
>
> And then finally, we need to think about how we roll this out, county
> at a time is the most obvious step, I think we order the import based
> on requests on the transit list, followed by requests on talk-gb, with
> a target date to import the rest by.
>
> And on the technical front, I'm going to have to make sure that the
> import tools I'm using are 0.6-capable.
>
> I'm copying this over to the west-mids list so we can get their  
> responses.
>
> -- 
> Regards,
> Thomas Wood
> (Edgemaster)


_______________________________________________
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit at openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit