[Talk-transit] [Spam] Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] NaPTAN data import
peter.miller at itoworld.com
Mon Mar 9 08:19:55 GMT 2009
On 7 Mar 2009, at 13:46, Gerrit Lammert wrote:
> Hi Peter.
> Peter Miller wrote:
>> On 6 Mar 2009, at 21:16, Gerrit Lammert wrote:
>> 1) We are aware that there is not consistency between transport modes
>> within OSM and that is confusing. For example it is railway=station
>> aeroway=station but it is amenity=bus_station. Places where people
>> for transport are nodes within the highway for some modes (railway/
>> but beside the road normally for others (buses).
> Exactly. This should be unified and made consistent.
>> I see only three ways this might go:
> 1) everything stays at it is -> enough for 95% of the mappers, but
> rather unusable for more complex usage scenarios
> 2) have the fully blown professional transmodel (or whatever) model
> adopted into OSM -> mappers won't/can't use it -> all data comes from
> outside databases like administrative entities or PT companys. Exact
> data, but we would be dependent on these.
> 3) have a basic model that suffices 95% of the mappers and 95% of the
> usage scenarios, allow it to be optionally extended (not replaced) by
> more complex data and stuff
> Of course, number 3 would be the only feasible solution in my opinion.
Agreed, I am not proposing a 'full Transmodel' implementation, I
shouldn't think that has ever been achieved in one product or project,
there would be no call to do that and no product would cover
everything from crew rostering to journey planning to operations anyway.
All I am proposing is that where we want to model something in OSM
that related to transit that we try to use the same term and define is
as being for the same thing as in Transmodel.
>> I propose that we create a 'Proposed Transmodel Migration' page to
>> up what we would need to change to achieve this - based on the
>> stop area page, but with a new name. This proposal would then be
>> put to
>> a vote when it is complete, there would not be an assumption that it
>> would happen until we saw how it worked out.
> I oppose.
> This should be approached from the OSM side of things with transmodel
> and others in mind. It should NOT be the primary goal to have it all
> made transmodel-like but merely transmodel-compatible.
I think you are saying that this is a 'tagging review' of OSM transit
tags and that we will use Transmodel for inspiration, rather than
saying we will use Transmodel for everything regardless.
All I will say is that if we choose to disagree with Transmodel on
something that it defines then we should be really careful that we are
not missing something that will matter to us later.
The only issue I have with the current page is that it is has Stop
Area in the title for something that is not a stop area in Transmodel.
If we get rid of that phrase from the title then I will be happy.
>> I also propose that we treat this project as separate from the NaPTAN
>> import. Let's get on with that and then over the next month work up
>> 'unified modelling' conversion, get agreement for it and then do a
>> conversion to the new format in a controlled way.
> I agree. Will you start a new wiki for that?
> I'm not familiar with transmodel, I would be interested in the main
> ideas and data structures behind it, so we could try and mimic those
> the OSM model where manageable and sensible.
So shall we call the new page 'Transit tagging review' or something.
If the proposal is later adopted we will then rename it as 'Transit
tagging'. The page will describe briefly all the transit elements that
we need in OSM (of which there are not actually a lot).
More information about the Talk-transit