Re: [Talk-transit] [Talk-gb-westmidlands] NaPTAN and the new PTtagging schema
Peter Miller wrote: Sent: 26 June 2009 6:24 PM To: Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) Cc: 'Thomas Wood'; talk-gb-westmidla...@openstreetmap.org; talk- tran...@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] [Talk-transit] NaPTAN and the new PTtagging schema On 26 Jun 2009, at 17:51, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote: Peter Miller wrote: Sent: 26 June 2009 4:41 PM To: Thomas Wood Cc: talk-gb-westmidla...@openstreetmap.org; talk- tran...@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] [Talk-transit] NaPTAN and the new PTtagging schema Your suggestions below make a lot of sense. I would however very much encourage you to include customary stops because they do indeed 'exist' even though there is no physical pole. Consider a road that doesn't have a name plate but when you people who live on the street what it is called they tell you. Does the street have a name or does it not - I suggest we would agree that it does? If a tree falls in a wood and there is no one to hear it did it make a sound etc. Customary stops can be confirmed by looking for physical marks of vehicles stopping or people standing around on the grass, from information at the stop opposite or from asking bus drivers. I would suggest that for now we believe NaPTAN. These are easy to add in a final cleanup anyway, just by usage of the route. The problem with the NaPTan data is that there are loads of stops that are probably just not used at all, hence we leave them turned off (silent data). I agree that we could and probably should import customary stops but I don't think we should assume they are actual in-use stops and hence should leave them silent in the database until someone confirms and adds highway=bus_stop For other areas of the country I think its fine (with the exception of CUS stops) to go ahead straight away and add the highway=bus_stop where there are few existing mapped stops. Ideally a post to the local uses in the area would confirm either way what they would like to do. You seem to be putting out different messages in the two above paragraphs. Are you saying you support the import of CUS stops or not. Also are you suggesting that bus stops are set as 'real' (ie active) stops. Yes, lets import them but not with the highway=bus_stop on them. Then OSMers can switch them on if they are in use or leave/delete them as they see fit. Possibly Roger will have some views on how many unused stops there are likely to be in the dataset. Looking at the Oct08 dataset there were 365,000 bus stops and 42,020 of them were unused at the time however this doesn't necessarily mean that they don't exist, only that no buses currently use them - in some cases they could be stops for summer-only services. I suggest that we should include all bus stops in the dataset regardless of use. We should removed stops that don't physically exist if there is no sign of them on the ground. Customary stops might need a visit to the friendly local bus operator who probably has all the information in his head. Physically marked stops can be checked by cruising the bus routes. Beyond that the only bit of data I dislike from the original run is the unverified=yes tag. It would be better to change this to verified=no for future imports (and easy to swap in West Mids.) sounds good Otherwise my experience in Brum is generally good in that with the exception of location (which is 10m to 100m off at least 50% of the time) the NaPTAN data matches the data on the ground very well. The accuracy will vary across the county and will reflect the care taken by each authority. I would expect it to be better in most places but might be proved wrong! Having a map that shows the bus stops would seem to be a good step to getting it improved by doing a physical survey or asking bus drivers to comment. If the data is hidden in the maps and not exposed it will be harder to sort out. I vote for having the data introduced as fully visisbly data but possibly we do it county by county. I am happy to be an early recipient of data for Suffolk and I think Ed Loach is keen to see the Essex data. Agreed, but the decision needs to come from the community on the ground, just as we have done with the West Midlands. Cheers Andy Regards, Peter I know Brian and others have documented a few oddities here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/NaPTAN_Error_Log Cheers Andy Traveline would strongly advocate for their inclusion so that OSM links seamlessly to their journey planners. Regards, Peter On 26 Jun 2009, at 16:21, Thomas Wood wrote: 2009/6/24 Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com: On 24 Jun 2009, at 18:20, Thomas Wood wrote: 2009/6/24 Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com: Can I suggest that we treat this import and any final tagging as a separate issue on separate timeline from the NaPTAN import just so long as no important information in the NaPTAN DB is lost
Re: [Talk-transit] [Talk-gb-westmidlands] NaPTAN and the new PTtagging schema
On 26 Jun 2009, at 17:51, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote: Peter Miller wrote: Sent: 26 June 2009 4:41 PM To: Thomas Wood Cc: talk-gb-westmidla...@openstreetmap.org; talk-transit@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] [Talk-transit] NaPTAN and the new PTtagging schema Your suggestions below make a lot of sense. I would however very much encourage you to include customary stops because they do indeed 'exist' even though there is no physical pole. Consider a road that doesn't have a name plate but when you people who live on the street what it is called they tell you. Does the street have a name or does it not - I suggest we would agree that it does? If a tree falls in a wood and there is no one to hear it did it make a sound etc. Customary stops can be confirmed by looking for physical marks of vehicles stopping or people standing around on the grass, from information at the stop opposite or from asking bus drivers. I would suggest that for now we believe NaPTAN. These are easy to add in a final cleanup anyway, just by usage of the route. The problem with the NaPTan data is that there are loads of stops that are probably just not used at all, hence we leave them turned off (silent data). I agree that we could and probably should import customary stops but I don't think we should assume they are actual in-use stops and hence should leave them silent in the database until someone confirms and adds highway=bus_stop For other areas of the country I think its fine (with the exception of CUS stops) to go ahead straight away and add the highway=bus_stop where there are few existing mapped stops. Ideally a post to the local uses in the area would confirm either way what they would like to do. You seem to be putting out different messages in the two above paragraphs. Are you saying you support the import of CUS stops or not. Also are you suggesting that bus stops are set as 'real' (ie active) stops. Possibly Roger will have some views on how many unused stops there are likely to be in the dataset. Looking at the Oct08 dataset there were 365,000 bus stops and 42,020 of them were unused at the time however this doesn't necessarily mean that they don't exist, only that no buses currently use them - in some cases they could be stops for summer-only services. I suggest that we should include all bus stops in the dataset regardless of use. We should removed stops that don't physically exist if there is no sign of them on the ground. Customary stops might need a visit to the friendly local bus operator who probably has all the information in his head. Physically marked stops can be checked by cruising the bus routes. Beyond that the only bit of data I dislike from the original run is the unverified=yes tag. It would be better to change this to verified=no for future imports (and easy to swap in West Mids.) sounds good Otherwise my experience in Brum is generally good in that with the exception of location (which is 10m to 100m off at least 50% of the time) the NaPTAN data matches the data on the ground very well. The accuracy will vary across the county and will reflect the care taken by each authority. I would expect it to be better in most places but might be proved wrong! Having a map that shows the bus stops would seem to be a good step to getting it improved by doing a physical survey or asking bus drivers to comment. If the data is hidden in the maps and not exposed it will be harder to sort out. I vote for having the data introduced as fully visisbly data but possibly we do it county by county. I am happy to be an early recipient of data for Suffolk and I think Ed Loach is keen to see the Essex data. Regards, Peter I know Brian and others have documented a few oddities here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/NaPTAN_Error_Log Cheers Andy Traveline would strongly advocate for their inclusion so that OSM links seamlessly to their journey planners. Regards, Peter On 26 Jun 2009, at 16:21, Thomas Wood wrote: 2009/6/24 Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com: On 24 Jun 2009, at 18:20, Thomas Wood wrote: 2009/6/24 Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com: Can I suggest that we treat this import and any final tagging as a separate issue on separate timeline from the NaPTAN import just so long as no important information in the NaPTAN DB is lost in the process. Can you clarify what you meant by this? Is it essentially that we don't care about the new tagging schema and get on with the import? Yes. I would suggest that to avoid trying to agree a new tagging arrangement in a hurry prior to the import and keep the two projects separate. Firstly we import the rest of NaPTAN as agreed in the original discussion, and then secondly we agree a harmonised tagging arrangement of some sort and convert all the data
