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

Peter Miller peter.miller at itoworld.com
Mon Sep 7 13:57:03 BST 2009


On 7 Sep 2009, at 13:41, Jason Cunningham wrote:

> 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
> http://tinypic.com/m/5lb29w/2
>
> 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.

All this makes sense and yes, I will stop editing the NaPTAN field  
itself. If the bearing is wrong I will create a bearing field with the  
correct value. If it is a marked location and not a customary stop as  
indicated in NaPTAN then I will tag is as shelter=yes, or pole=yes as  
appropriate. If it is marked as being there in NaPTAN but is not there  
on the ground then I will check with a local or a bus driver and mark  
it as customary=yes or as 'physically_present=no' as appropriate.

Should we add a tag about out investigations, for example:  
'note:customary=asked a local and they said is way 07Sep09'

Possibly we should agree the whether the physical name on the pole  
goes in name field or in alt-name field.


Regards,




Peter




>
> Jason Cunningham
> user:jamicu
>
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20090907/886b79b7/attachment.html>


More information about the Talk-transit mailing list