Re: [Talk-transit] Railway route relations
Hi all, On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.comwrote: I think the problem is that we are using the term Route for at least two different things. The more I think about it, the more I think this needs resolving (and well documenting)! The first question is what does route=railway denote, the infrastructure or the service pattern? To put it in concrete terms, there are two regular Eurostar services, London-Paris and London-Brussels. Should there be a railway=route relation for each of these services? What about the ocassional Disneyland and snow train services to the Alps? These services also travel along the lines known as High Speed 1 (from Folkestone to London) and the Channel Tunnel - should these also be tagged as separate relations? Frankie -- Frankie Roberto Experience Designer, Rattle 0114 2706977 http://www.rattlecentral.com ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Naptan import
Roger Slevin ro...@slevin.plus.com schrieb: Christoph Sorry - I now realise I shouldn't have referred to inactive localities ... this is something I can see on the editor system for NPTG, but the export only shows the active localities ... the records of the inactive ones are not included in the standard XML file. I would need to check whether it is possible to get an extract from NPTG which includes inactive records (or only comprises the inactive ones) - but that is a question I will only ask if someone can suggest that some useful purpose could be served by having access to that data. The only reason for using the inactive data I can see is a comparison with OSM-only places. This could indicate NPTG places which might have been deactivated because they are not part of the public transport network. Unless we want to add data from NPTG to existing OSM stops (e.g. the locality code) this information is probably more relevant to the DoT than OSM. However, since places in OSM might be derived from NPE maps, OSM-only places could also mean that the locality has been abandoned in the time since 1950. Your brief history of NPTG indicates to me that the data is probably much more recent then NPE's 1950 data. It might therefore be interesting to know which places are only in OSM and not even in the inactive NPTG data. Such places have then probably been abandoned a long time ago. Christoph Roger -Original Message- From: Christoph Böhme [mailto:christ...@b3e.net] Sent: 28 July 2009 22:54 To: ro...@slevin.plus.com; Public transport/transit/shared taxi related topics Cc: ro...@slevin.plus.com; 'Peter Miller' Subject: Re: [Talk-transit] Naptan import Roger, thank you for your explanations. Roger Slevin ro...@slevin.plus.com schrieb: Although NPTG was originally for public transport purposes, we stressed at all times that a locality should be listed even if it has no public transport - but we know that some local editors have probably erred towards marking some unserved rural hamlets as inactive. All inactive localities should still be in the data - so hamlets which are missing may be in NPTG, but marked as inactive. What would an inactive entry look like in the data? The xml schema does not seem to define any elements/attributes for inactive entries. However they may simply never have been in the source data - and no one to date has recognised the need to add them to NPTG. It would be interesting to see what localities OSM holds in its data which are not included in NPTG (as well as the reverse of this) if that is possible. I created two tables of OSM- and NTPG-only places: http://www.mappa-mercia.org/nptg/nptg-only-localities.csv.gz http://www.mappa-mercia.org/nptg/osm-only-localities.csv.gz I considered a place to be only in one dataset if no place from the other dataset exists in its proximity which has the same name. Proximity was defined as an euclidian distance less than 0.3 between the lat/lon positions of the places (I don't know how this relates to kilometres/miles). Since the OSM data contains some nodes with place-tags that have nothing with actual places, I only included nodes with a place-value of either locality, island, suburb, hamlet, village, municipality, town or city. I also excluded place=farm. Christoph ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Naptan import
Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com schrieb: On 27 Jul 2009, at 22:14, Christoph Böhme wrote: Hi Roger Slevin ro...@slevin.plus.com schrieb: Locality Classification was added as a possible nice to have to the version 2 schema but it has not been populated, and no guidance has been created to indicate how this field should be used (save for a table of permitted values). There is no classification data in NPTG other than that which comes from the source - and that is only there because it could be ... I would not recommend its use as it is flaky, and offers nothing in respect of newly created locality entries in the Gazetteer. So, it looks like we will not have any classification information. Unless we just want to import the plain names this will complicate the import a bit as we have to somehow map the locations to OSM place- types. At the moment I am having three ideas how we could do this: Based on the parent relationship we could guess if a location might be a suburb or village. Many places have wikipedia entries (even villages). If we can manage to automatically look the entries up and extract the relevant information (population size) from the info box we could probably classify a lot of places. The landsat data might give us some hints about the size of places. We just need to find a way to retrieve this information automatically :-) Alternatively we could just invent a value for unclassified places and wait for people to classify the places. It seems that the NPTG data is less useful than it could have been because the the lack of classification data. We do of course also have access to locality names from other sources including NPE maps for places that are more than 50 years old and our eye-balls. Despite the lack of classification the NPTG data can still easily be matched with the data already in OSM. So, while not being able to import the whole dataset we could still add some data to existing places if we want. The NPTG has the following to offer: - Administrative Area - Atco Area Code - NPTG District in parts of the county (do these districts have any relation with ceremonial/administrative counties?) - NPTG locality reference - Alternative names (e.g. welsh names) - Short names - Qualifiers for duplicate names Do you think we should import any of this? Especially when taking the NaPTAN import into acconut the Atco Area Code or NPTG locality references might become handy, I reckon. Talking of the NaPTAN import: The NPTG data also contains polygons for the Plusbus Zones. This data is self-contained and can easily be imported. They could be either imported as ways tagged with their zone code and their name or we could create an additional relation that holds all the bus stops which are part of the zone as well. The latter would, of course, only be necessary if there are bus stops within the polygon which are not part of the zone or vice versa. Possibly we just provide NPTG data as a useful 'free' data overlay for creating localities in OSM in association with data from NPE but don't spend too long trying to do an automatic import of that data. I am of the same opinion. Most of the missing places in OSM are small hamlets, villages and suburbs and it is going to be really difficult to automatically distinguish these automatically. So, I will rather improve the NPTG viewer a bit so that it does not display NPTG places which are already in OSM anymore. This tool can then be used as a guide to find umapped places. You mention matching localities up with Wikipedia. I see no licensing issues with using data from Wikipieda as far as I am aware btw. Would be great to tie places up with Wikipedia and possibly also with woeids (http://developer.yahoo.com/geo/geoplanet/) but that could be something for later. We should keep this in mind. Although, I am not sure if it makes much sense to add tags to OSM in a completely automated process as this information can easily be applied when its needed. Cheers, Christoph Regards, Peter Do you have any other ideas? Cheers, Christoph ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Railway route relations
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 04:24:34PM +0100, Frankie Roberto wrote: On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.comwrote: I think the problem is that we are using the term Route for at least two different things. The more I think about it, the more I think this needs resolving (and well documenting)! The first question is what does route=railway denote, the infrastructure or the service pattern? This has been solved in Sebastians proposal: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Oxomoa/Public_transport_schema#Differentiation_between_railway_lines_and_railway_routes Jochen -- Jochen Topf joc...@remote.org http://www.remote.org/jochen/ +49-721-388298 ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Naptan import
Christoph Böhme christ...@b3e.net schrieb: Thomas Wood grand.edgemas...@gmail.com schrieb: 2009/7/29 Christoph Böhme christ...@b3e.net: Talking of the NaPTAN import: The NPTG data also contains polygons for the Plusbus Zones. This data is self-contained and can easily be imported. They could be either imported as ways tagged with their zone code and their name or we could create an additional relation that holds all the bus stops which are part of the zone as well. The latter would, of course, only be necessary if there are bus stops within the polygon which are not part of the zone or vice versa. I tried to create a relation for plusbus zone stops from the NaPTAN data but there were simply too many - we quickly hit the OSM relation member maximum. Okay, that answers the question. I simple create a polygon then. I suggest the following tagging scheme for the ways: public_transport=pay_scale_area ref=Plusbus zone ref name=Plusbus zone name Is pay scale area the correct general name for things like the plusbus zones? I transformed the Plusbus Zones into a josm-file (XSLT is cool :-). Thomas can you import it using the naptan-user if no one objects to the tagging scheme? http://www.mappa-mercia.org/nptg/plusbuszones.osm.gz Cheers, Christoph ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Naptan import
The polygon should be closed by linking the final entry back to the first entry in the file for each PlusBus Zone Roger -Original Message- From: talk-transit-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-transit-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Wood Sent: 29 July 2009 22:58 To: Public transport/transit/shared taxi related topics Subject: Re: [Talk-transit] Naptan import 2009/7/29 Christoph Böhme christ...@b3e.net: Christoph Böhme christ...@b3e.net schrieb: Thomas Wood grand.edgemas...@gmail.com schrieb: 2009/7/29 Christoph Böhme christ...@b3e.net: Talking of the NaPTAN import: The NPTG data also contains polygons for the Plusbus Zones. This data is self-contained and can easily be imported. They could be either imported as ways tagged with their zone code and their name or we could create an additional relation that holds all the bus stops which are part of the zone as well. The latter would, of course, only be necessary if there are bus stops within the polygon which are not part of the zone or vice versa. I tried to create a relation for plusbus zone stops from the NaPTAN data but there were simply too many - we quickly hit the OSM relation member maximum. Okay, that answers the question. I simple create a polygon then. I suggest the following tagging scheme for the ways: public_transport=pay_scale_area ref=Plusbus zone ref name=Plusbus zone name Is pay scale area the correct general name for things like the plusbus zones? I transformed the Plusbus Zones into a josm-file (XSLT is cool :-). Thomas can you import it using the naptan-user if no one objects to the tagging scheme? http://www.mappa-mercia.org/nptg/plusbuszones.osm.gz Cheers, Christoph ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit That looks fine, the only issue is that none of the polygons are closed! -- Regards, Thomas Wood (Edgemaster) ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Naptan import
I'll see whether it is possible to get a file exported which includes the inactive localities and let you know ... there may be some value in running a comparison between your 1950s data and the more recent data in NPTG. Best wishes Roger -Original Message- From: Christoph Böhme [mailto:christ...@b3e.net] Sent: 29 July 2009 18:36 To: ro...@slevin.plus.com Cc: 'Public transport/transit/shared taxi related topics'; 'Peter Miller' Subject: Re: [Talk-transit] Naptan import Roger Slevin ro...@slevin.plus.com schrieb: Christoph Sorry - I now realise I shouldn't have referred to inactive localities ... this is something I can see on the editor system for NPTG, but the export only shows the active localities ... the records of the inactive ones are not included in the standard XML file. I would need to check whether it is possible to get an extract from NPTG which includes inactive records (or only comprises the inactive ones) - but that is a question I will only ask if someone can suggest that some useful purpose could be served by having access to that data. The only reason for using the inactive data I can see is a comparison with OSM-only places. This could indicate NPTG places which might have been deactivated because they are not part of the public transport network. Unless we want to add data from NPTG to existing OSM stops (e.g. the locality code) this information is probably more relevant to the DoT than OSM. However, since places in OSM might be derived from NPE maps, OSM-only places could also mean that the locality has been abandoned in the time since 1950. Your brief history of NPTG indicates to me that the data is probably much more recent then NPE's 1950 data. It might therefore be interesting to know which places are only in OSM and not even in the inactive NPTG data. Such places have then probably been abandoned a long time ago. Christoph Roger -Original Message- From: Christoph Böhme [mailto:christ...@b3e.net] Sent: 28 July 2009 22:54 To: ro...@slevin.plus.com; Public transport/transit/shared taxi related topics Cc: ro...@slevin.plus.com; 'Peter Miller' Subject: Re: [Talk-transit] Naptan import Roger, thank you for your explanations. Roger Slevin ro...@slevin.plus.com schrieb: Although NPTG was originally for public transport purposes, we stressed at all times that a locality should be listed even if it has no public transport - but we know that some local editors have probably erred towards marking some unserved rural hamlets as inactive. All inactive localities should still be in the data - so hamlets which are missing may be in NPTG, but marked as inactive. What would an inactive entry look like in the data? The xml schema does not seem to define any elements/attributes for inactive entries. However they may simply never have been in the source data - and no one to date has recognised the need to add them to NPTG. It would be interesting to see what localities OSM holds in its data which are not included in NPTG (as well as the reverse of this) if that is possible. I created two tables of OSM- and NTPG-only places: http://www.mappa-mercia.org/nptg/nptg-only-localities.csv.gz http://www.mappa-mercia.org/nptg/osm-only-localities.csv.gz I considered a place to be only in one dataset if no place from the other dataset exists in its proximity which has the same name. Proximity was defined as an euclidian distance less than 0.3 between the lat/lon positions of the places (I don't know how this relates to kilometres/miles). Since the OSM data contains some nodes with place-tags that have nothing with actual places, I only included nodes with a place-value of either locality, island, suburb, hamlet, village, municipality, town or city. I also excluded place=farm. Christoph ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Naptan import
Thomas Wood grand.edgemas...@gmail.com schrieb: 2009/7/29 Christoph Böhme christ...@b3e.net: I transformed the Plusbus Zones into a josm-file (XSLT is cool :-). Thomas can you import it using the naptan-user if no one objects to the tagging scheme? http://www.mappa-mercia.org/nptg/plusbuszones.osm.gz Cheers, Christoph ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit That looks fine, the only issue is that none of the polygons are closed! Oh, good that you noticed this. I fixed the file and uploaded it again. Christoph ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
