[Talk-transit] local_ref problem around Anerley in NAPTAN

Péter Connell p8r at connell.plus.com
Wed Sep 2 17:14:43 BST 2009

Isn't different names what name/loc_name/alt_name/nat_name &c. are for?

Where they differ I would probably prefer

name: what it says on the flag e.g. Woodhouse Street Holborn Terrace
loc_name: the most common name people/bus drivers/timetables would use 
e.g. Charing Cross Shops
alt_name: (where applicable) where timetables show something different 
still e.g. old name of pubs, pubs that have closed etc. (though the old 
King's Head could be a loc_name I guess)
nat_name: what it says in NaPTAN

though obviously where name is the same as some of these you wouldn't 
use them.

I would tend to assume all this data is worth capturing rather than just 
deferring to NaPTAN's superiority as it is buggy in some places... (and 
it its purpose is really for helping PTI pros identify bus stops rather 
than for passengers?)

Would appreciate anyone's views


Richard Mann wrote:
> 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 
> <mailto: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>
>     [mailto: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 <mailto:frankie at frankieroberto.com>>
>     wrote:
>     2009/9/2 Shaun McDonald <shaun at shaunmcdonald.me.uk
>     <mailto: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 <http://www.rattlecentral.com/>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Talk-transit mailing list
>     Talk-transit at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-transit at openstreetmap.org>
>     http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
>     _______________________________________________
>     Talk-transit mailing list
>     Talk-transit at openstreetmap.org <mailto: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

More information about the Talk-transit mailing list