Re: [Talk-transit] local_ref problem around Anerley in NAPTAN
1) Would it make sense to seek permision from TfL to derive labelling information from their website maps. It's such a rich source of info, it'd be a pity not to try. They're a bit daft putting copyright on their spider diagrams - if I were them, I'd want them to be copied. 2) I don't like the idea of ways for platforms, except possibly for the limited case where you've got one platform on each side. It's just not extendable. They should be areas. Sublettering for parts of platforms should probably be on nodes, representing the point on the platform that's the midpoint for boarding a train that stops at that platform (it will be in the timetable system as 2a, and a notional router ought to direct you to that point). If a platform is split into 2a and 2b, you probably need three nodes - 2a/2b and 2 (for trains that take up the full length). Richard On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 1:17 PM, Frankie Roberto fran...@frankieroberto.comwrote: 2009/9/2 Shaun McDonald sh...@shaunmcdonald.me.uk That was ages ago that I done that. I have added those extra details to a few stations, in some cases even adding the platform numbers. It does become more difficult when there are island platforms. The reason why I have been adding them is from a desire to know how to access the station, and how to access the platforms. It is also an increased detail thing. I had a discussion about island platforms on the wiki a while back (see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/unified_stoparea#Sheffield). When I mapped Sheffield Station ( http://www.openstreetmap.org/?relation=79249) I noted that some platforms have up to 6 different names (2A, 2B, 3, 4, 5A, 5B). The options as I see it are: * stick all the names in a single ref= tag, semi-colon or comma separated (the former seems to be the convention?) * add the names to the stopping points (the node on the actual railway way). * splitting the platform way into different ways (eg two halves) and then tagging those separately (although this still leaves you the problem of different names for the different 'edges'). * doing something complicated with relations. Thoughts? 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 ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] local_ref problem around Anerley in NAPTAN
I'm not sure I like the idea of a 2 way on top of a shorter 2a and 2b way; hence my instinctive preference for nodes in the complicated situations. It can also be unclear where one subplatform starts and ends (especially where the split does't reflect a signalling berth, as is common in Germany, for instance). However, I can't really see the harm in using ways in the simple situation, and equally the full platform face name could be a way, but I'd make subplatform locations nodes rather than ways. The length of a platform could equally well be recorded as a length= tag on a node; the info is on the NR website if you know where to look - and have permission to use it. And the fact that it may not _yet_ render is - ahem - not relevant. Richard On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.comwrote: On 2 Sep 2009, at 16:27, Richard Mann wrote: 2) I don't like the idea of ways for platforms, except possibly for the limited case where you've got one platform on each side. It's just not extendable. They should be areas. Sublettering for parts of platforms should probably be on nodes, representing the point on the platform that's the midpoint for boarding a train that stops at that platform (it will be in the timetable system as 2a, and a notional router ought to direct you to that point). If a platform is split into 2a and 2b, you probably need three nodes - 2a/2b and 2 (for trains that take up the full length). Personally I find linear ways pretty satisfactory for platforms, which often have no more width than a footpath after all (which are also tagged as linear features)/ Possibly we should use areas for larger platforms (ie the paved/tarmac area) with highway=pedestrian;area=yes and then add railway=platform ways to the edges of the area as required. Sub platforms can also be linear ways for their actual extent (I don't like using nodes for sub-platforms because they do have an extent which can be measured and is sometimes be important). For a platform that serves two tracks, one of either side then an area should be used with the two different sides having appropriate linear 'platforms' associated with them. I am not sure how to represent a set of steps coming down to a point in the middle of an area though. One reason to use linear ways for now is because we already have the tools to build, render and route models that use them. Areas are fine with side accesses, but not top and bottom accesses. Regards, Peter ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] local_ref problem around Anerley in NAPTAN
2009/9/2 Péter Connell p...@connell.plus.com: Isn't different names what name/loc_name/alt_name/nat_name c. are for? Where they differ I would probably prefer name: what it says on the flag e.g. Woodhouse Street Holborn Terrace loc_name: the most common name people/bus drivers/timetables would use e.g. Charing Cross Shops alt_name: (where applicable) where timetables show something different still e.g. old name of pubs, pubs that have closed etc. (though the old King's Head could be a loc_name I guess) nat_name: what it says in NaPTAN Nah, just use naptan:CommonName for what NaPTAN says, as it is imported, there's no point changing it, since it wont make any difference upstream. All the other suggestions are good. In most cases CommonName and name should be the same, but TfL just don't like us... though obviously where name is the same as some of these you wouldn't use them. I would tend to assume all this data is worth capturing rather than just deferring to NaPTAN's superiority as it is buggy in some places... (and it its purpose is really for helping PTI pros identify bus stops rather than for passengers?) Would appreciate anyone's views Péter -- Regards, Thomas Wood (Edgemaster) ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] local_ref problem around Anerley in NAPTAN
Peter The commonname and indicator fields in NaPTAN are designed ONLY for public facing information. I do not disagree that compliance with guidance is not 100% still in some regions - but there is a high level of compliance in many regions, particularly in the SE, EM and EA regions and London. Best wishes Roger -Original Message- From: talk-transit-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-transit-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Péter Connell Sent: 02 September 2009 17:15 To: Public transport/transit/shared taxi related topics Subject: Re: [Talk-transit] local_ref problem around Anerley in NAPTAN Isn't different names what name/loc_name/alt_name/nat_name c. are for? Where they differ I would probably prefer name: what it says on the flag e.g. Woodhouse Street Holborn Terrace loc_name: the most common name people/bus drivers/timetables would use e.g. Charing Cross Shops alt_name: (where applicable) where timetables show something different still e.g. old name of pubs, pubs that have closed etc. (though the old King's Head could be a loc_name I guess) nat_name: what it says in NaPTAN though obviously where name is the same as some of these you wouldn't use them. I would tend to assume all this data is worth capturing rather than just deferring to NaPTAN's superiority as it is buggy in some places... (and it its purpose is really for helping PTI pros identify bus stops rather than for passengers?) Would appreciate anyone's views Péter Richard Mann wrote: NaPTAN has node info; I was thinking more of deriving way and relation info. Richard On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Roger Slevin ro...@slevin.plus.com mailto:ro...@slevin.plus.com wrote: TfL supplies its data to NaPTAN and this is the national official source of stop names. I would therefore ask that OSM focuses on using the official source of data and reports discrepancies which I can then take up with the responsible people in TfL thanks Roger *From:* talk-transit-boun...@openstreetmap.org mailto:talk-transit-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-transit-boun...@openstreetmap.org mailto:talk-transit-boun...@openstreetmap.org] *On Behalf Of *Richard Mann *Sent:* 02 September 2009 16:27 *To:* Public transport/transit/shared taxi related topics *Subject:* Re: [Talk-transit] local_ref problem around Anerley in NAPTAN 1) Would it make sense to seek permision from TfL to derive labelling information from their website maps. It's such a rich source of info, it'd be a pity not to try. They're a bit daft putting copyright on their spider diagrams - if I were them, I'd want them to be copied. 2) I don't like the idea of ways for platforms, except possibly for the limited case where you've got one platform on each side. It's just not extendable. They should be areas. Sublettering for parts of platforms should probably be on nodes, representing the point on the platform that's the midpoint for boarding a train that stops at that platform (it will be in the timetable system as 2a, and a notional router ought to direct you to that point). If a platform is split into 2a and 2b, you probably need three nodes - 2a/2b and 2 (for trains that take up the full length). Richard On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 1:17 PM, Frankie Roberto fran...@frankieroberto.com mailto:fran...@frankieroberto.com wrote: 2009/9/2 Shaun McDonald sh...@shaunmcdonald.me.uk mailto:sh...@shaunmcdonald.me.uk That was ages ago that I done that. I have added those extra details to a few stations, in some cases even adding the platform numbers. It does become more difficult when there are island platforms. The reason why I have been adding them is from a desire to know how to access the station, and how to access the platforms. It is also an increased detail thing. I had a discussion about island platforms on the wiki a while back (see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/unified_stoparea#S heffield). When I mapped Sheffield Station (http://www.openstreetmap.org/?relation=79249) I noted that some platforms have up to 6 different names (2A, 2B, 3, 4, 5A, 5B). The options as I see it are: * stick all the names in a single ref= tag, semi-colon or comma separated (the former seems to be the convention?) * add the names to the stopping points (the node on the actual railway way). * splitting the platform way into different ways (eg two halves) and then tagging those separately (although this still leaves you the problem of different names for the different 'edges'). * doing something complicated with relations. Thoughts? Frankie -- Frankie Roberto Experience Designer, Rattle 0114 2706977 http
