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

Jason Cunningham jamicuosm at googlemail.com
Mon Sep 7 13:41:56 BST 2009

In the recent discussion about Anerley bus stops, we spoke about several
problems. I've been out and looked at most of the stops in that area and
have made some changes.

For the moment, until agreement is reached I've decided not to edit tags
with are labelled or start with "naptan" (except the verified tag)

I did change tags that I consider to be general OSM tags used to 'map what's
on the ground'. The following link shows an example of how one bus stop can
differ from the Naptan Data

Name: Some were wrong or needed altering. I changed the name to what was on
the bus stop, but left the Naptan:CommonName tag untouched. One issue is
agreeing on how to separate two lines of names. (see the picture) I used the
following eg [Anerley Road / Croydon Road].

Local_ref: I changed this to the reference letter on the bus stop. The tag
Naptan:Indicator holds the Naptan version.

There are errors in tags starting with Naptan and it seems we shouldnt
change these, but instead create a new tag/note with the different data.
This looks like a good idea if it makes it easier for Naptan to compare
data, without dealing with the history of the node.

Jason Cunningham

2009/9/7 Chris Hill <chillly809 at yahoo.co.uk>

> 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
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20090907/60d37488/attachment.html>

More information about the Talk-transit mailing list