[Talk-transit] [Spam] Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] NaPTAN data import

Gerrit Lammert osm at 00l.de
Mon Mar 9 13:48:48 GMT 2009

Hello Peter.

On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 08:19:55 +0000, Peter Miller <peter.miller at itoworld.com> wrote:
> On 7 Mar 2009, at 13:46, Gerrit Lammert wrote:
>> 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.

Good. I'm just a bit scared, because I don't really understand all this Transmodel and Naptan stuff. 
In that way, I like to think of myself as the "common mapper". ;-)

As such, I wouldn't think its important that the tag names are identically to transmodel, just that we have a clear allocation.
I mean, when the Naptan "NapStop" is used on exactly one of the ways the current highway=bus_stop is used, we should keep the old tag for compatibility reasons. Its easy to replace one term with another in Imports and the such.

>>> I propose that we create a 'Proposed Transmodel Migration' page to
>>> work
>>> up what we would need to change to achieve this - based on the
>>> unified
>>> 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.

Probably even more than just inspiration, but lets not redefine OSM to exactly copy Transmodel.

> 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.

Can you please explain, what a stop area in Transmodel is?
I came up with the proposal before I knew anything about transmodel (still don't really), so I think it is a good sign that there are so many similarities.
> 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).

Sounds good to me.


More information about the Talk-transit mailing list