Re: [Talk-transit] NaPTAN Import
Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com schrieb: On 1 Aug 2009, at 22:51, Thomas Wood wrote: snip Ooops, I linked the wrong changeset! http://api06.dev.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/389 was my intent. A couple of comments. Firstly, the locality field is an important part of the name in NaPTAN. The stop name can be constructed in a number of ways depending on how much precision is needed and what the geographic context is. For example, let's take this stop outside a pub called 'The Woodman' (which is in Ashteed). http://api06.dev.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/396115 If the context for the enquiry was Ashteed itself, then one could say 'The Woodman (Adj)'. If the context was wider and one still needed to be precise one would say: 'Ashteed, The Woodman (Adj)'. Localities themselves are not always unique so there is the possibility for a locality to have a qualifier in NaPTAN. The full description for a bus stop called 'Long Road' in Cambridge in Cambridgeshire (rather than the one in Gloucestershire) would be 'Cambridge (Cambs), Long Road (opp)'. If the context was east anglia then one could drop the qualifier and it would become 'Cambridge, Long Road (opp)'. If the context was Cambridge itself then one could use 'Long Road (opp)'. So... what to do. I suggest we need a naptan:locality field which should contain the naptan locality name or possibly also naptan:natgazid as a unique reference for the place (to accommodate multiple localities with the same name). I am not clear what we do, but we need to do something. To me the functionality of the naptan:locality tag appears to be similar to the one of the is_in tag on places. With the introduction of boundaries these tags become less important in my opinion as you can easily find out the location of a feature by looking in which areas it is in. I think, putting the NaPTAN data in OSM is similar to drawing them on a map: The map (i.e. OSM) provides a rich context from which much information wich was stored as properties of the bus stops before can be derived. Cheers, Christoph Regards, Peter We're then ready to begin uploading to the main database. Cool :-) Cheers, Christoph ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit -- 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 ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Railway route relations
Hi all, I'm still keen to try and nail this public transport service vs infrastructure issue. I think this mainly applies to railways, however, as I've mentioned before, I'm trying out a few of the ideas on the UK's much smaller list of tram networks. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Trams details where I've got to so far. The Tramlink in Croydon (London) is a good example of where the the infrastructure (the track network) is clearly different from the tram service patterns (routes 1 to 3). The routes are currently mapped with a relation tagged as type=route, route=tram. I've just created a relation for the network as a whole (see http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/189917). For the type being, it's tagged as type=network, network=tram as well as public_transport=network from Sebastians proposal. Are there any other views on how this should be tagged? Perhaps the network shouldn't be tagged at all, under the relations aren't for categories principle? I'm also of the opinion that we should stick to using type=route, route=tram/railway for the train/tram service patterns, rather than the infrastructure. However, this appears to be the opposite of what's written in http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Oxomoa/Public_transport_schema Thoughts? Frankie On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 10:25 PM, Frankie Roberto fran...@frankieroberto.com wrote: On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 8:27 PM, Jochen Topf joc...@remote.org wrote: 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 Thanks for the link, I hadn't seen this. I agree with Peter that we need to bring these various proposals together, form some kind of consensus, and document it fully on the main wiki pages (eg http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Routes) Interestingly, if I understand it correctly, the division between route and line in Sebastian's proposal is exactly opposite to what I'd intuitively have guessed at from the words. eg, we have the West Coast Main Line (the infrastructure or rail corridor) and the route of the Flying Scotsman (the schedule service route). So if it was me, I think I'd name them the opposite way round. However, so long as we document them clearly (with examples), I guess it doesn't matter too much which words we use. As a first step, I think it'd be useful to look at some concrete examples, see how they're currently tagged in OSM, and suggest ways in which the various schemes would be applied. I've started doing this a bit with the UK's tram networks ( http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Trams), which so far use route=tram to tag the service patterns of the trams (which seem to sometimes be called lines, and sometimes routes). -- 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] Railway route relations
On Wednesday 05 August 2009 00:37:50 Frankie Roberto wrote: Hi all, I'm still keen to try and nail this public transport service vs infrastructure issue. IMHO the solution is simple. Name it after what you are mapping. For vehicles: The route the cyclist follows is route=bicycle. The route bus 5 follows is route=bus. The route tram 13 follows is route=tram. The route the Eurostar follows is route=train. For infrastructure: The route of the M1 is route=road The route that is made up of the rail tracks of the East Coast Mainline is route=rail. Deprecating route= and replacing it with line= for most things where we currently use route= is a lot of work for no real gain. -- m.v.g., Cartinus ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
