[Talk-transit] [Talk-GB] XAPI lagging behind by days?

[Christoph Boehme]

On 24/03/2010 08:57, Tom Chance wrote:
> 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?

Yes, that would be good. However, this would require a bit of work since
Novam is not aware of relations at all at the moment. If someone wants
to start working on this the source code is available on [1].

Best,
Christoph

[1] https://kofje.de/repos/naptan/novam/branches/xapi-backend/

> You could also check if there are relations matching up to route_ref entries
> for areas where they were put in.
>
> Tom
> 
> 
> 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 added. 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.
>>
>> Shaun
>>
>> On 24 Mar 2010, at 07:58, Tom Chance wrote:
>>
>> That all sounds good, though if we add stops to route relations do they
>> really need route_ref?
>>
>> Tom
>>
>> 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 of stops in the
>> basic scheme:
>>
>> 1. Non-NaPTAN stops: Stops without naptan:*-tags. Basically plain
>>   old OSM bus stops.
>> 2. Unverified NaPTAN stops: Stops from the NaPTAN import which
>>   have a naptan:verified=no tag or which are missing the
>>   highway=bus_stop tag.
>> 3. Verified NaPTAN stops: Stops tagged as hightway=bus_stop and with
>>   either no naptan:verified tag or a naptan:verified=yes tag.
>> 4. CUS-stops: Stops with naptan:BusStopType=CUS because 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 naptan:error tag
>> 2. Route information: Highlight stops which are missing the route_ref
>>   tag.
>> 3. Shelter and asset refs: Highlight bus stops which have shelter=yes
>>   and no asset_ref or which have no shelter tag at all (this might be
>>   quite Birmingham specific).
>> 4. Anything else?
>>
>> I suggest to keep the old schemes but rename them to the name of the
>> public transport network they apply to (e.g. "Transport West Midlands"
>> for Birmingham), since they are based on the amount of information that
>> is available on the signs used by a particular network.
>>
>> Best,
>> Christoph
>>
>>> Best, > Tom > > -- > http://tom.acrewoods.net
>> http://twitter.com/tom_chance
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
>>
>>
> 
>