[Talk-transit] One last question (for now)

Chris Hill chillly809 at yahoo.co.uk
Mon Sep 7 11:56:18 BST 2009


I thought we had agreed not to change the NaPTAN fields until an update 
process had been agreed. My only exceptions to this are to remove the 
naptan:verified=no field (not a real NaPTAN field) and to move the stop 
to a location that is more accurate, since the location rendered on maps 
benefits from being correct. I record differences in a note= tag, and 
record any discrepancies in a separate list.

Any stops that are missing I add physically_present=no and remove the 
highway=bus_stop tag (as per the wiki), add a note and update my list.

If the name, bearing etc are wrong I add this to the note and record 
it.  If we want a name field ('The Range' rather than 'B&Q') we have a 
name field to use, or invent stop_name rather than adjusting the NaPTAN 
fields.  When we reload this data in the future we don't yet know what 
basis the matching might be on, since there are discrepancies with the 
AtcoCode we may need other fields too.

I have sent my first set of comments (~25% of the stops) to Hull 
council's transport team for their comments and analysis.

Cheers, Chris

Peter Miller wrote:
> On 7 Sep 2009, at 09:46, Ed Loach wrote:
>
>   
>> Is it worth questioning the stop names? The ones named "B&Q" in  
>> Clacton for example are outside their old site (now "The Range"), as  
>> B&Q moved to new premises about 5 years ago. I've not yet been to  
>> the B&Q stops to see if they have the name on (some stops around  
>> here do, some don't - and these are two I've not yet checked).
>>     
>
> One of the motivations for adding NaPTAN data to OSM was to get a new  
> feedback path for differences. There are of course licensing  
> restrictions about using data from OSM to improve a (c) Crown dataset,  
> but the list of places where there is a difference of opinion is of  
> considerable use.
>
> Also, OSM aims to be better that official data so we need to make such  
> that is the case and that we can lead with data accuracy, and not just  
> wait for the official data to be correct which might take some time  
> (in my county I have issues I reported 3 months ago that are still not  
> resolved).
>
> As such I think we need to agree on how we deal with discrepences.
>
> How about the following:
>
> Situation: One finds at stop in reality that does not exist in NaPTAN.
> Response: Add it to OSM with highway=bus_stop, shelter=yes/no etc,  
> note='not in NaPTAN 7 Sept 2009'
>
> Situation: NaPTAN says it is a marked bus stops but there is no sign  
> of a pole
> Response: removed highway=bus_stop tag and add a note, for example  
> note=no sigh of this one on the ground'
>
> Situation: NaPTAN says it is customary, but actually it is marked
> Response: Should we have a tag stop_type which can reflect the NaPTAN  
> types, ie customary, marked, hail and ride etc? For now I have been  
> changing the naptan tag
>
> Situation: The bearing doesn't match the road and the description
> Response: For now I have been changing the bearing in NaPTAN field,  
> but I think we need a proper bearing field. Possibly we should add a  
> bearing field and populate it if the is different
>
> Situation: The name of the flag is not the name in NaPTAN
> Response: at it as alt_name
>
> more?....
>
>
> We can then run a script from time to time to compare the current  
> state of the two datasets and create reports for either party of the  
> discrepancies.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Peter Miller
>
>
>
>
>   
>> Ed
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>   




More information about the Talk-transit mailing list