[Talk-transit] [Talk-gb-westmidlands] NaPTAN and the new PTtagging schema

Peter Miller peter.miller at itoworld.com
Fri Jun 26 19:36:42 BST 2009


On 26 Jun 2009, at 18:44, Roger Slevin wrote:

> Peter
>
> I am surprised that the proportion of unused stops was more than 10%  
> - but
> was the total with or without DELeted stops?  ... this percentage  
> will vary
> significantly from areatoarea.  NaPTAN guidance recommends  
> retainging stops
> even when they are unused - as this allows an operator to add new  
> services
> with the minimum of difficulty.  Some areas adhere to this guidance  
> - so
> they will have many stops in their NaPTAN data that have ceased to  
> be used -
> other areas tend to remove stops soon after they have ceased to be  
> used.

Here is the breakdown of unused stops by authority. Greater Manchester  
has the highest percentage with 32% unused stops according to NPTDR 08  
(schedules for Oct08). Possibly not a reason to not to include them  
but possibly the authorities with very larger numbers without big  
seasonal changes might be worth a second look.

	
Greater Manchester 	32%
Highland 	30%
West Berkshire 	30%
Wokingham 	29%
Scottish Borders 	27%
Northumberland 	27%
Bracknell Forest 	26%
Rutland 	25%
Cornwall 	23%
Perth & Kinross 	22%
Cumbria 	21%
Warwickshire 	20%
Worcestershire 	20%
Durham 	19%
Torbay 	19%
Cheshire 	18%
Norfolk 	18%
Wrexham 	17%
Ceredigion 	17%
Powys 	17%
Pembrokeshire 	17%
Dumfries & Galloway 	17%
Blackburn with Darwen 	16%
Moray 	16%
North East Lincolnshire 	15%
Bedfordshire 	15%
Stirling 	15%
Northamptonshire 	15%
Staffordshire 	15%
Hartlepool 	15%
Middlesbrough 	14%
Thurrock 	14%
Leicestershire 	14%
Orkney Islands 	14%
Shropshire 	14%
Blaenau Gwent 	14%
Telford & Wrekin 	14%
Clackmannanshire 	14%
Bournemouth 	13%
Dorset 	13%
Darlington 	13%
Vale of Glamorgan 	13%
Monmouthshire 	13%
Lincolnshire 	13%
Luton 	13%
Stockton-on-Tees 	13%
Peterborough 	13%
North Yorkshire 	13%
Gwynedd 	12%
Bridgend 	12%
Windsor & Maidenhead 	12%
York 	12%
Derby 	12%
Surrey 	12%
Devon 	12%
Edinburgh 	12%
Suffolk 	12%
West Sussex 	12%
Kent 	12%
Leicester 	11%
Denbighshire 	11%
Halton 	11%
Isle of Wight 	11%
Merthyr Tydfil 	11%
Conwy 	11%
Cardiff 	11%
Milton Keynes 	11%
Somerset 	11%
Oxfordshire 	11%
East Riding of Yorkshire 	11%
Shetland Islands 	10%
Falkirk 	10%
Kingston upon Hull 	10%
Redcar & Cleveland 	10%
Plymouth 	10%
Tyne & Wear 	10%
Slough 	10%
Cambridgeshire 	10%
Hampshire 	10%
Hertfordshire 	9%
Carmarthenshire 	9%
Gloucestershire 	9%
Lancashire 	9%
East Sussex 	9%
Angus 	9%
Newport 	9%
Neath Port Talbot 	9%
Argyll & Bute 	9%
Warrington 	9%
Merseyside 	9%
Flintshire 	8%
Wiltshire 	8%
North Lincolnshire 	8%
Torfaen 	8%
Reading 	8%
Fife 	7%
Bristol 	7%
Buckinghamshire 	7%
Brighton and Hove 	7%
Herefordshire 	7%
Derbyshire 	7%
Aberdeenshire 	6%
Rhondda Cynon Taff 	6%
Nottinghamshire 	6%
West Yorkshire 	6%
Western Isles 	6%
Isle of Anglesey 	6%
Southend-on-Sea 	6%
Poole 	6%
Stoke-on-Trent 	6%
East Dunbartonshire 	6%
Essex 	6%
Swindon 	6%
Medway 	6%
Bath & North East Somerset 	6%
Caerphilly 	6%
West Lothian 	6%
North Somerset 	5%
Blackpool 	5%
East Lothian 	5%
North Ayrshire 	5%
South Ayrshire 	5%
Greater London 	5%
Swansea 	5%
Southampton 	4%
Nottingham 	4%
South Gloucestershire 	4%
East Ayrshire 	4%
South Yorkshire 	4%
Glasgow 	4%
South Lanarkshire 	3%
Renfrewshire 	3%
North Lanarkshire 	3%
Inverclyde 	3%
Dundee 	3%
Aberdeen 	2%
West Dunbartonshire 	2%
West Midlands 	2%
Midlothian 	1%
Portsmouth 	1%
East Renfrewshire 	1%

Regards,


Peter


>
> Best wishes
>
> 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 18:24
> To: Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists)
> Cc: talk-transit at openstreetmap.org; Talk-gb-westmidlands at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Talk-transit] [Talk-gb-westmidlands] NaPTAN and the new
> PTtagging schema
>
>
> On 26 Jun 2009, at 17:51, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote:
>
>> Peter Miller wrote:
>>> Sent: 26 June 2009 4:41 PM
>>> To: Thomas Wood
>>> Cc: Talk-gb-westmidlands at openstreetmap.org;
> talk-transit at openstreetmap.org
>>> Subject: Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] [Talk-transit] NaPTAN and the  
>>> new
>>> PTtagging 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.
>>
>> These are easy to add in a final cleanup anyway, just by usage of
>> the route.
>> The problem with the NaPTan data is that there are loads of stops
>> that are
>> probably just not used at all, hence we leave them turned off
>> (silent data).
>> I agree that we could and probably should import customary stops but
>> I don't
>> think we should assume they are actual in-use stops and hence should
>> leave
>> them silent in the database until someone confirms and adds
>> highway=bus_stop
>>
>> For other areas of the country I think its fine (with the exception
>> of CUS
>> stops) to go ahead straight away and add the highway=bus_stop where
>> there
>> are few existing mapped stops. Ideally a post to the local uses in
>> the area
>> would confirm either way what they would like to do.
>
> You seem to be putting out different messages in the two above
> paragraphs. Are you saying you support the import of CUS stops or not.
> Also are you suggesting that bus stops are set as 'real' (ie active)
> stops.
>
> Possibly Roger will have some views on how many unused stops there are
> likely to be in the dataset. Looking at the Oct08 dataset there were
> 365,000 bus stops and 42,020 of them were unused at the time however
> this doesn't necessarily mean that they don't exist, only that no
> buses currently use them - in some cases they could be stops for
> summer-only services. I suggest that we should include all bus stops
> in the dataset regardless of use. We should removed stops that don't
> physically exist if there is no sign of them on the ground. Customary
> stops might need a visit to the friendly local bus operator who
> probably has all the information in his head. Physically marked stops
> can be checked by cruising the bus routes.
>
>>
>> Beyond that the only bit of data I dislike from the original run is
>> the
>> unverified=yes tag. It would be better to change this to verified=no
>> for
>> future imports (and easy to swap in West Mids.)
>
> sounds good
>>
>> Otherwise my experience in Brum is generally good in that with the
>> exception
>> of location (which is 10m to 100m off at least 50% of the time) the
>> NaPTAN
>> data matches the data on the ground very well.
>>
> The accuracy will vary across the county and will reflect the care
> taken by each authority. I would expect it to be better in most places
> but might be proved wrong!
>
> Having a map that shows the bus stops would seem to be a good step to
> getting it improved by doing a physical survey or asking bus drivers
> to comment. If the data is hidden in the maps and not exposed it will
> be harder to sort out. I vote for having the data introduced as fully
> visisbly data but possibly we do it county by county. I am happy to be
> an early recipient of data for Suffolk and I think Ed Loach is keen to
> see the Essex data.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Peter
>
>
>> I know Brian and others have documented a few oddities here:
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/NaPTAN_Error_Log
>>
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Andy
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 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-gb-westmidlands mailing list
>>> Talk-gb-westmidlands at openstreetmap.org
>>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-transit mailing list
> Talk-transit at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-transit/attachments/20090626/879c25ff/attachment.html>


More information about the Talk-transit mailing list