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

Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) ajrlists at googlemail.com
Mon Jun 29 10:13:21 BST 2009

Peter Miller wrote:
>Sent: 26 June 2009 6:24 PM
>To: Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists)
>Cc: 'Thomas Wood'; Talk-gb-westmidlands at openstreetmap.org; talk-
>transit at openstreetmap.org
>Subject: Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] [Talk-transit] 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)

Yes, lets import them but not with the highway=bus_stop on them. Then OSMers
can switch them on if they are in use or leave/delete them as they see fit.

>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
>> 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.

Agreed, but the decision needs to come from the community on the ground,
just as we have done with the West Midlands.


>> 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

More information about the Talk-transit mailing list