[Talk-transit] [Talk-GB] XAPI lagging behind by days?
Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists)
ajrlists at googlemail.com
Wed Mar 24 09:15:49 GMT 2010
The route_ref tag is extremely useful in the west midlands because all
physical bus stops carry the full list of route numbers visiting the stop on
the sign plate, this makes data gathering on the ground very easy and
generally I don't set up the route relation until I've done all the stops in
an area as its quicker that way. I then just do a search in JOSM and add all
the stops (and ways between them) to make the new relations.
If we obtain route information from any other source then the route_ref on
the stop is useful as a check, some folks are noting that some route numbers
have been changing recently in south/east Birmingham for instance.
>From: talk-gb-bounces at openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-gb-
>bounces at openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Tom Chance
>Sent: 24 March 2010 8:58 AM
>To: Shaun McDonald
>Cc: Public transport/transit/shared taxi related topics; talk-
>gb at openstreetmap.org
>Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] XAPI lagging behind by days?
>That makes sense. So if a bus stop has one or more relations added, should
>it be counted as equivalent to a route_ref tag in the colour scheme, i.e.
>not marked as needing a route_ref tag?
>You could also check if there are relations matching up to route_ref
>entries for areas where they were put in.
>On 24 March 2010 08:13, Shaun McDonald <shaun at shaunmcdonald.me.uk> wrote:
> The route ref is an interim data level until the relations are
>Think of it as house numbers being initially added as points, and then full
>building outlines being added at a later stage at which point the building
>number gets transferred to the building outline.
> On 24 Mar 2010, at 07:58, Tom Chance wrote:
> That all sounds good, though if we add stops to route
>do they really need route_ref?
> On Mar 23, 2010 10:26 PM, "Christoph Böhme"
><christoph at b3e.net> wrote:
> Tom Chance <tom at acrewoods.net> schrieb:
> > On 23 March 2010 13:20, Christoph Boehme
><christoph at b3e.net> wrote: > > > Well, I just updated t...
> Yes, exactly. My current plan is to have four types
>stops in the
> basic scheme:
> 1. Non-NaPTAN stops: Stops without naptan:*-tags.
> old OSM bus stops.
> 2. Unverified NaPTAN stops: Stops from the NaPTAN
> have a naptan:verified=no tag or which are missing
> highway=bus_stop tag.
> 3. Verified NaPTAN stops: Stops tagged as
>hightway=bus_stop and with
> either no naptan:verified tag or a
> 4. CUS-stops: Stops with naptan:BusStopType=CUS
>they are not
> marked on the ground and cannot be verified.
> Extended schemes would be:
> 1. Stops with notes: Highlight stops with a note or
> 2. Route information: Highlight stops which are
> 3. Shelter and asset refs: Highlight bus stops which
> and no asset_ref or which have no shelter tag at
>(this might be
> quite Birmingham specific).
> 4. Anything else?
> I suggest to keep the old schemes but rename them to
>name of the
> public transport network they apply to (e.g.
> for Birmingham), since they are based on the amount
> is available on the signs used by a particular
> > Best, > Tom > > -- > http://tom.acrewoods.net
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>Version: 9.0.791 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2762 - Release Date: 03/23/10
More information about the Talk-transit