[Talk-transit] local_ref problem around Anerley in NAPTAN

Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxford at googlemail.com
Wed Sep 2 16:48:46 BST 2009


NaPTAN has node info; I was thinking more of deriving way and relation info.

Richard

On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Roger Slevin <roger at slevin.plus.com> wrote:

>  TfL supplies its data to NaPTAN – and this is the national official
> source of stop names.  I would therefore ask that OSM focuses on using the
> official source of data – and reports discrepancies which I can then take up
> with the responsible people in TfL
>
>
>
> thanks
>
>
>
> Roger
>
>
>
> *From:* talk-transit-bounces at openstreetmap.org [mailto:
> talk-transit-bounces at openstreetmap.org] *On Behalf Of *Richard Mann
> *Sent:* 02 September 2009 16:27
> *To:* Public transport/transit/shared taxi related topics
> *Subject:* Re: [Talk-transit] local_ref problem around Anerley in NAPTAN
>
>
>
> 1) Would it make sense to seek permision from TfL to derive labelling
> information from their website maps. It's such a rich source of info, it'd
> be a pity not to try. They're a bit daft putting copyright on their spider
> diagrams - if I were them, I'd want them to be copied.
>
>
>
> 2) I don't like the idea of ways for platforms, except possibly for the
> limited case where you've got one platform on each side. It's just not
> extendable. They should be areas. Sublettering for parts of platforms should
> probably be on nodes, representing the point on the platform that's the
> midpoint for boarding a train that stops at that platform (it will be in the
> timetable system as "2a", and a notional router ought to direct you to that
> point). If a platform is split into 2a and 2b, you probably need three nodes
> - 2a/2b and 2 (for trains that take up the full length).
>
>
>
> Richard
>
> On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 1:17 PM, Frankie Roberto <
> frankie at frankieroberto.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> 2009/9/2 Shaun McDonald <shaun at shaunmcdonald.me.uk>
>
>
>
>
>
>   That was ages ago that I done that. I have added those extra details to
> a few stations, in some cases even adding the platform numbers. It does
> become more difficult when there are island platforms. The reason why I have
> been adding them is from a desire to know how to access the station, and how
> to access the platforms. It is also an increased detail thing.
>
>
> I had a discussion about island platforms on the wiki a while back (see
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/unified_stoparea#Sheffield).
> When I mapped Sheffield Station (
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?relation=79249) I noted that some platforms
> have up to 6 different names (2A, 2B, 3, 4, 5A, 5B).
>
> The options as I see it are:
>
> * stick all the names in a single ref= tag, semi-colon or comma separated
> (the former seems to be the convention?)
> * add the names to the stopping points (the node on the actual railway
> way).
> * splitting the platform way into different ways (eg two halves) and then
> tagging those separately (although this still leaves you the problem of
> different names for the different 'edges').
> * doing something complicated with relations.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Frankie
>
> --
> Frankie Roberto
> Experience Designer, Rattle
> 0114 2706977
> http://www.rattlecentral.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-transit mailing list
> Talk-transit at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20090902/85e40b49/attachment.html>


More information about the Talk-transit mailing list