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

Brian Prangle bprangle at googlemail.com
Mon Jun 29 14:34:28 BST 2009


Let the relevant community decide - in the West Mids we had a lot of
exisiting bus stops so it made sense to have them imported as silent. It
means a lot of work for us verifying and turning them on, but at least in
JOSM we can differentiate between surveyed and imported bus stops - and it
gets us to resurvey lots of areas which results in a much more accurate map.
Agree with Andy that "Verified=No" is more intuitive than "Unverified=Yes".
On CUS stops I still think, as a mapper, these should not be tagged as  no
marker exists on the ground, but I can see why the Public Transport people
want to see them. Perhaps we should just tag them
highway=bus_stop_customary? Could future public sector apps still parse
these as bus_stop, thereby satisfying public transport aims, whilst not
rendering to satisfy mapping aims?

I'm having some issues with HAR - presumably this is on hold until a later
date.

Regards

Brian

2009/6/29 Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) <ajrlists at googlemail.com>

> 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)
> >stops.
> >
>
> 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
> >> 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.
>
> Agreed, but the decision needs to come from the community on the ground,
> just as we have done with the West Midlands.
>
> Cheers
>
> Andy
> >
> >
> >
> >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-gb-westmidlands mailing list
> Talk-gb-westmidlands at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-transit/attachments/20090629/7c5fa82b/attachment.html>


More information about the Talk-transit mailing list