[Talk-transit] Should railway station relations includebusstops?

Thomas Wood grand.edgemaster at gmail.com
Mon Sep 14 02:59:29 BST 2009

One point,
naptan:verified=no is designed to be deleted, rather than changed to yes
In this case maintaining the naptan tags whilst including other stops
will be misleading when comparing how data is changed in the future.
Maybe change the StopAreaCode to be a semicolon delimited list of the
StopAreaCodes you moved the points from?

It is my intention this week to focus on PT tagging in London. I need
to dip myself into editing the map by hand again, I've been stuck in
code land for too long.

2009/9/14 Frankie Roberto <frankie at frankieroberto.com>:
> 2009/9/10 Peter Miller <peter.miller at itoworld.com>
>> It does appear to be a little complex around Waterloo and possibly wrong?
> Okay, so I've done a little 'tidying up'...
> There is now a single relation
> (http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/201171) which contains all the
> bus stops near the station which are called 'Waterloo', or which are
> directly outside the station (node 277675366 seems to have been mapped by a
> user, rather than from the NaPTAN import, so is possibly a duplicate).
> The following 'local_ref' codes are included: A,B,C,F,H,J,K,N,S,V,W -
> indicating that there are quite a few missing (presuming they go from A to
> at least W without skipping any letters?)
> There are also 2 NaPTAN-created relations which now no longer have any
> members, http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/201160 and
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/199517 as I've moved all of
> these to the previous relation. The StopAreaCodes seem to be different
> (though only by the last letter) - so I don't know if these means that they
> have some administrative difference? What should we do with these relations?
> The train station is a separate relation
> (http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/238792), which includes the
> building (as role=outline), a few shops, and now the ex-International
> platforms 20-25, (as ways, with stop points, alongside ways for each of the
> tracks). Platforms 1-19 are still to do... :-)
> The tube station is yet another relation
> (http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/238793), which just contains 4
> stop nodes on each of the tube line ways.
> I suggest that each of these 3 relations should belong to a parent
> 'Waterloo' relation, but I can't seem to currently do this within Potlatch.
> Can somebody else have a go (does JOSM support this?)
> Any other suggestions for improvements are welcome (particularly from people
> who live a bit closer...)
> Frankie
>> The stop areas you refer to have type codes which are described in the
>> NaPTAN schema document, but I am not clear that it is at all correct based
>> on a quick look I also notice that many of the areas have duplicate names
>> which also makes it harder to sort out.
>> I believe that there is another relation in NaPTAN for the station that
>> has not yet been imported into NaPTAN which makes it even more complicated.
>> Let's use Waterloo as a test case for OSM. Bank/Monument would also be
>> useful because it is given as an example in the NaPTAN documentation. Lets
>> also focus on the stations given in the IFOPT documentation examples.
>> Incidentally Waterloo is used as an example thoughout the IFOPT
>> documentation.
>> Possibly we should have a mapping party there (I passed though it
>> yesterday as it happens).
> --
> 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

Thomas Wood

More information about the Talk-transit mailing list