[Talk-transit] Naptan import stop tagging (was: Proposed changes to oxomoa schema [part 2: stops])
One question on the Naptan import: Did you use any tags from the public_transport therefore? Or are these all highway=bus_stop? Would be a great chance to increase coverage of the more detailed public_transport=platform Claudius Am 29.06.2010 02:07, Shaun McDonald: In the UK as part of the Naptan import we already have decided that bus stops must be marked exactly where they are on the ground and added to the route relation of the bus route. Shaun On 28 Jun 2010, at 19:07, Michał Borsuk wrote: Hi everybody again: This time I'd like to propose a smaller change, but this one may break compatibility with oxomoa - it has been, however, already commonly implemented. *ISSUE RAISED: * map bus stops to their physical location, not a point on the route/street * Present status: If I understand correctly, oxomoa suggests that the bus stop data (name, unique number, etc.) be entered as properties of a point on the route/street. Problems : * Lines often have stops that are quite far apart for each direction * This prohibits proper routing (GPS + walking), * this system is not very intuitive I find. *Proposed change: bus stops to be mapped exactly to where they are, and to be added to relations * Result: * better routing results e.g. one wants to find a correct way to the bus stop, and not to the average point somewhere between two stops of the same name in either direction. * more intuitive system - easier learning curve for new users. Influence on possible future software solutions: minor. May require all the stops on the route to be ordered based on their geographical location, as opposed to their place on the route (the latter is easier). Comments: I have seen this system very often implemented - two bus stops on each side, so my suggestion is just to codify the situation for future editors. Hope this is not too much at once, for more is to follow. Greetings, -- Best regards, mit freundlichen Grüssen, meilleurs sentiments, Pozdrowienia, Michał Borsuk ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org mailto: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] Naptan import stop tagging
I was referring to public_transport=platform + bus=yes public_transport=bus_stop would not work because there are stop positions where trams, buses and sometimes (Karlsruhe comes to my mind) even light_rails stop at the same position (Image: http://www.dvn-berlin.de/i/verein/2009_alex_bus_hpa.jpg ) and these would be tagged as public_transport=platform + bus=yes + tram=yes (+ light_rail=yes) Claudius Am 29.06.2010 11:32, Richard Mann: They're all still highway=bus_stop. I think I'd need some convincing that public_transport=platform was appropriate for bus stops. Public_transport=bus_stop, maybe. Why change? Richard On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 9:59 AM, Claudius Henrichsclaudiu...@gmx.de wrote: One question on the Naptan import: Did you use any tags from the public_transport therefore? Or are these all highway=bus_stop? Would be a great chance to increase coverage of the more detailed public_transport=platform Claudius ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] NAPTAN Import: Plus-bus Zones
Roger Slevin wrote: The PlusBus zone data comes from PlusBus – so please don’t try to change it. If you think it is wrong, then let me know and I will ask PlusBus to review the information. The Wrexham and Ruabon PlusBus zone has been imported without any reference to Wrexham (the more important location): name = Ruabon public_transport = pay_scale_area ref = RUABON source = naptan_import While this presumably corresponds to an entry in somebody's database, it causes a bit of FUD in OSM. Presumably I could edit the name tag, in spite of the admonition above. But name tags are rendered by Mapnik at high zooms (here as a disembodied name 16km from Ruabon). For these areas, it would be better to remove the name tag and use note instead, e.g. note = Wrexham and Ruabon PlusBus area. Chris ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
[Talk-transit] Naptan import
I see some areas have been imported near here, public_transport=pay_scale_area, for Harwich and Clacton. Is there a wiki page somewhere detailing what these are (I'll search after sending this)? In the case of Clacton, it looks like it was defined as a line from the coast, inland, then back to the coast, so the segment that closes the area cuts right through the middle of town. Should I adjust this segment to follow the coastline? Clacton: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/38387713 Similarly for Harwich, the northeast segment seems to almost cross the tip of the peninsula, and in so doing cuts off most of Harwich to mainly only include Dovercourt. Should I amend that segment to include Harwich? Harwich: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/38387691 Thanks Ed ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Naptan import
Thanks Roger, If they're PlusBus zones, then Clacton railway station lies outside the Clacton zone as it currently stands, and while Harwich International (formerly Harwich Parkeston Quay) is probably a boundary point for the Harwich zone (though the railway station as marked in OSM seems to be slightly further north, so it may be the bus stop at the front of the station), Harwich Town (and Dovercourt) stations are outside the Harwich zone. A quick web search suggests the Harwich zone should look a bit like http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/system/galleries/pics/plusbus_maps/HAR WICH.gif and the Clacton one http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/managed/promotions/prd64ecf0a0a0024005 ffb18c459bd0e/ticketValidityConditions/PLUSBUS%20zone%20map%20for%20 Clacton-on-Sea.pdf ( or shortened: http://is.gd/26fwi ) Ed -Original Message- From: talk-transit-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk- transit-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Roger Slevin Sent: 07 August 2009 09:20 To: 'Public transport/transit/shared taxi related topics' Subject: Re: [Talk-transit] Naptan import Ed Useful feedback which I will take up with PlusBus - as they should have listed coastal boundary stops to avoid this situation. Best wishes Roger -Original Message- From: talk-transit-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-transit-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Ed Loach Sent: 07 August 2009 08:59 To: talk-transit@openstreetmap.org Subject: [Talk-transit] Naptan import I see some areas have been imported near here, public_transport=pay_scale_area, for Harwich and Clacton. Is there a wiki page somewhere detailing what these are (I'll search after sending this)? In the case of Clacton, it looks like it was defined as a line from the coast, inland, then back to the coast, so the segment that closes the area cuts right through the middle of town. Should I adjust this segment to follow the coastline? Clacton: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/38387713 Similarly for Harwich, the northeast segment seems to almost cross the tip of the peninsula, and in so doing cuts off most of Harwich to mainly only include Dovercourt. Should I amend that segment to include Harwich? Harwich: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/38387691 Thanks Ed ___ 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] Naptan import
On 7 Aug 2009, at 10:08, Ed Loach wrote: Thanks Roger, If they're PlusBus zones, then Clacton railway station lies outside the Clacton zone as it currently stands, and while Harwich International (formerly Harwich Parkeston Quay) is probably a boundary point for the Harwich zone (though the railway station as marked in OSM seems to be slightly further north, so it may be the bus stop at the front of the station), Harwich Town (and Dovercourt) stations are outside the Harwich zone. A quick web search suggests the Harwich zone should look a bit like http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/system/galleries/pics/plusbus_maps/HAR WICH.gif and the Clacton one http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/managed/promotions/prd64ecf0a0a0024005 ffb18c459bd0e/ticketValidityConditions/PLUSBUS%20zone%20map%20for%20 Clacton-on-Sea.pdf ( or shortened: http://is.gd/26fwi ) Would it be sensible to create a PlusBus page on the wiki, and link to it from the NaPTAN user in relation to the upload? The Wiki page can describe what the features are about and can also be used to list issues that need to be resolved. I am not offering to create the page so hopefully someone else will do that. (I am doing work on cleaning up other existing transit related wiki pages on when I have time). Regards, Peter Ed -Original Message- From: talk-transit-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk- transit-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Roger Slevin Sent: 07 August 2009 09:20 To: 'Public transport/transit/shared taxi related topics' Subject: Re: [Talk-transit] Naptan import Ed Useful feedback which I will take up with PlusBus - as they should have listed coastal boundary stops to avoid this situation. Best wishes Roger -Original Message- From: talk-transit-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-transit-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Ed Loach Sent: 07 August 2009 08:59 To: talk-transit@openstreetmap.org Subject: [Talk-transit] Naptan import I see some areas have been imported near here, public_transport=pay_scale_area, for Harwich and Clacton. Is there a wiki page somewhere detailing what these are (I'll search after sending this)? In the case of Clacton, it looks like it was defined as a line from the coast, inland, then back to the coast, so the segment that closes the area cuts right through the middle of town. Should I adjust this segment to follow the coastline? Clacton: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/38387713 Similarly for Harwich, the northeast segment seems to almost cross the tip of the peninsula, and in so doing cuts off most of Harwich to mainly only include Dovercourt. Should I amend that segment to include Harwich? Harwich: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/38387691 Thanks Ed ___ 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 ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Naptan import
I am not offering to create the page so hopefully someone else will do that. (I am doing work on cleaning up other existing transit related wiki pages on when I have time). I might do a page Tag:public_transport=pay_scale_area and divert PlusBus to that? Google reveals these areas were discussed on this list while I was on holiday at the end of July (and not receiving any osm lists emails), so I guess the issues I've mentioned today are related to the areas not being closed in the source data and that in the source data they have been assumed to follow the coastline in these areas rather than a straight line between the first and last points. Ed ___ 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: Would it be sensible to create a PlusBus page on the wiki, and link to it from the NaPTAN user in relation to the upload? The Wiki page can describe what the features are about and can also be used to list issues that need to be resolved. I am not offering to create the page so hopefully someone else will do that. (I am doing work on cleaning up other existing transit related wiki pages on when I have time). I am intending to create a page describing the NPTG/Plusbus Zone import. I just did not get round to do it yet. Christoph Regards, Peter Ed -Original Message- From: talk-transit-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk- transit-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Roger Slevin Sent: 07 August 2009 09:20 To: 'Public transport/transit/shared taxi related topics' Subject: Re: [Talk-transit] Naptan import Ed Useful feedback which I will take up with PlusBus - as they should have listed coastal boundary stops to avoid this situation. Best wishes Roger -Original Message- From: talk-transit-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-transit-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Ed Loach Sent: 07 August 2009 08:59 To: talk-transit@openstreetmap.org Subject: [Talk-transit] Naptan import I see some areas have been imported near here, public_transport=pay_scale_area, for Harwich and Clacton. Is there a wiki page somewhere detailing what these are (I'll search after sending this)? In the case of Clacton, it looks like it was defined as a line from the coast, inland, then back to the coast, so the segment that closes the area cuts right through the middle of town. Should I adjust this segment to follow the coastline? Clacton: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/38387713 Similarly for Harwich, the northeast segment seems to almost cross the tip of the peninsula, and in so doing cuts off most of Harwich to mainly only include Dovercourt. Should I amend that segment to include Harwich? Harwich: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/38387691 Thanks Ed ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] NAPTAN Import: Plus-bus Zones
PlusBus zone boundaries are defined by the stoppoints at the edges of the zones. It should be possible to draw straight lines between each of the boundary points to define the polygon of the area they cover (all stops within such a polygon are members of that PlusBus zone). The exceptional treatment of NET (tram) in Nottingham is not reflected in the data supplied by PlusBus – which is why it doesn’t show up on your mapping of the data (and it doesn’t show on the zone diagram on the PlusBus web site either) – I suspect that this is because it would be misleading as it would imply that buses can be used in the area of served by the tram that is beyond the main area of the PlusBus bus zone. The PlusBus zone data comes from PlusBus – so please don’t try to change it. If you think it is wrong, then let me know and I will ask PlusBus to review the information. Roger From: talk-transit-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-transit-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Jerry Clough - OSM Sent: 05 August 2009 15:31 To: talk-transit@openstreetmap.org Subject: [Talk-transit] NAPTAN Import: Plus-bus Zones I've had a quick look at a couple of the PlusBusZones (once inadvertently, as the name is rendering inappropriately on the Mapnik map): Nottingham and Maidenhead. In both cases boundaries are only approximate, and appear to be delimited by bus stops rather than routes (e.g., service 6 in Maidenhead travels along A308, and through the Pinkneys Green area, but AFAIK does not stop). The Nottingham one is of particular interest to me as the available literature shows an extremely fuzzy map with no indications of the precise limits of the zone. On the routes where I know the limit of the city-wide tickets (CityRider, Kangaroo) the edges of the zone are from 100-200 metres out. I wonder how we can improve this mapping in OSM. For instance I could ensure that the PlusBus zone polygon shared nodes with the bus stops at the Blue http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.9075lon=-1.23513zoom=17layers=B000FTF Bell, Attenborough, and the Sherwin http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.93592lon=-1.25096zoom=17layers=B000FTF Arms, Bramcote. There is one other issue: the Nottingham Tram (NET) extends to Hucknall, and I think the relevant tram stops are included in the PlusBus scheme, but buses are not. The Kangaroo includes the tram and also train services between Hucknall, Attenborough, Carlton and Nottingham. Jerry SK53 PS. First posting to list, so formatting might be an issue. ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
[Talk-transit] NAPTAN Import: Plus-bus Zones
I've had a quick look at a couple of the PlusBusZones (once inadvertently, as the name is rendering inappropriately on the Mapnik map): Nottingham and Maidenhead. In both cases boundaries are only approximate, and appear to be delimited by bus stops rather than routes (e.g., service 6 in Maidenhead travels along A308, and through the Pinkneys Green area, but AFAIK does not stop). The Nottingham one is of particular interest to me as the available literature shows an extremely fuzzy map with no indications of the precise limits of the zone. On the routes where I know the limit of the city-wide tickets (CityRider, Kangaroo) the edges of the zone are from 100-200 metres out. I wonder how we can improve this mapping in OSM. For instance I could ensure that the PlusBus zone polygon shared nodes with the bus stops at the Blue Bell, Attenborough, and the Sherwin Arms, Bramcote. There is one other issue: the Nottingham Tram (NET) extends to Hucknall, and I think the relevant tram stops are included in the PlusBus scheme, but buses are not. The Kangaroo includes the tram and also train services between Hucknall, Attenborough, Carlton and Nottingham. Jerry SK53 PS. First posting to list, so formatting might be an issue. ___ 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 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] NaPTAN Import
On 1 Aug 2009, at 22:51, Thomas Wood wrote: 2009/8/1 Christoph Böhme christ...@b3e.net: Thomas Wood grand.edgemas...@gmail.com schrieb: I think all outstanding coding issues have now been dealt with. There's one minor tagging issue to address - should the source tag be on the data or changesets. Since the source tag applies to the whole changeset it makes sense to tag only the changeset. However, I believe editors do not display changeset tags at the moment. This means changeset tags are basically not visible when you edit data. While it can be handy to see the source of an element when you edit it (e.g. I'm much less relucant to move NPE-sourced data if it does not fit with my tracks than surveyed data) this should not be a problem with the naptan-import. The naptan:-tags are a very obvious hint where the data is coming from. So, I'd vote for placing the source-tag at the changeset. Otherwise, a test upload of the Surrey data is visible here - http://api06.dev.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/394 Comments welcomed. Could it be that the tags are missing? All the nodes I have looked at are empty (http://api06.dev.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/416977, for example) 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. 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
Re: [Talk-transit] Naptan import
Plusbus zones are polygons which are unrelated to the road network - so for Rye it covers a large polygon defined by straight lines linking each pair of adjacent nodes on the source list of defining points. The representation of this along the roads is inappropriate - and certainly not how it should be should be shown in terms of the zone definition intended. The Rye example is a particularly extreme example, as there are few roads in the area with bus routes - and lots of marshland and open countryside covered by the Plusbus zone. Roger -Original Message- From: talk-transit-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-transit-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Christoph Böhme Sent: 02 August 2009 00:24 To: Thomas Wood Cc: Public transport/transit/shared taxi related topics Subject: Re: [Talk-transit] Naptan import Thomas Wood grand.edgemas...@gmail.com schrieb: 2009/7/30 Christoph Böhme christ...@b3e.net: 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 I have run JOSM's validator over it to clean up some duplicate ways, and the more obviously incorrect polygon geometries (West Mids had a weird doubleback by the look of it) a few have overlapping segments, but I've chosen to ignore their 'errorness'. http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/2008301 Good idea to use JOSM's validator, I should have done it myself ... The incorrect geometries are converted directly from the NPTG data. Some of the polygons there have duplicate nodes. Removing the duplicate nodes was a sensible choice, I think. I had a look at the very distorted Plusbus Zone for Rye. Its strange shape seems to stem from the fact that it simple spans four villages and follows the road between them. I think there are similar reasons for the other errors. Thank you checking and importing the changeset! Christoph -- 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
Roger Slevin ro...@slevin.plus.com schrieb: Plusbus zones are polygons which are unrelated to the road network - so for Rye it covers a large polygon defined by straight lines linking each pair of adjacent nodes on the source list of defining points. The representation of this along the roads is inappropriate - and certainly not how it should be should be shown in terms of the zone definition intended. The representation of the plusbus zones in OSM is still as it should be. Except for merging duplicate nodes they are the same as defined in the NPTG data. I just tried to describe why the zone for Rye has such an unusual shape compared to other zones. I didn't modify it to actually follow the roads. Sorry for causing confusion! Christoph The Rye example is a particularly extreme example, as there are few roads in the area with bus routes - and lots of marshland and open countryside covered by the Plusbus zone. Roger -Original Message- From: talk-transit-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-transit-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Christoph Böhme Sent: 02 August 2009 00:24 To: Thomas Wood Cc: Public transport/transit/shared taxi related topics Subject: Re: [Talk-transit] Naptan import Thomas Wood grand.edgemas...@gmail.com schrieb: 2009/7/30 Christoph Böhme christ...@b3e.net: 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 I have run JOSM's validator over it to clean up some duplicate ways, and the more obviously incorrect polygon geometries (West Mids had a weird doubleback by the look of it) a few have overlapping segments, but I've chosen to ignore their 'errorness'. http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/2008301 Good idea to use JOSM's validator, I should have done it myself ... The incorrect geometries are converted directly from the NPTG data. Some of the polygons there have duplicate nodes. Removing the duplicate nodes was a sensible choice, I think. I had a look at the very distorted Plusbus Zone for Rye. Its strange shape seems to stem from the fact that it simple spans four villages and follows the road between them. I think there are similar reasons for the other errors. Thank you checking and importing the changeset! Christoph -- 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] Naptan import
Christoph Thanks - if that's the case then I need to look again at the definition of this particular zone I had alerted the people who had created the data a long time ago that it could be defined much more simply. So let me check why this hasn't happened. From memory it should only need about 12 points defining a blob rather than the very strange detail that is being defined by the more extensive list of points that I now see is still in the source data. Roger -Original Message- From: talk-transit-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-transit-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Christoph Böhme Sent: 02 August 2009 11:40 To: talk-transit@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-transit] Naptan import Roger Slevin ro...@slevin.plus.com schrieb: Plusbus zones are polygons which are unrelated to the road network - so for Rye it covers a large polygon defined by straight lines linking each pair of adjacent nodes on the source list of defining points. The representation of this along the roads is inappropriate - and certainly not how it should be should be shown in terms of the zone definition intended. The representation of the plusbus zones in OSM is still as it should be. Except for merging duplicate nodes they are the same as defined in the NPTG data. I just tried to describe why the zone for Rye has such an unusual shape compared to other zones. I didn't modify it to actually follow the roads. Sorry for causing confusion! Christoph The Rye example is a particularly extreme example, as there are few roads in the area with bus routes - and lots of marshland and open countryside covered by the Plusbus zone. Roger -Original Message- From: talk-transit-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-transit-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Christoph Böhme Sent: 02 August 2009 00:24 To: Thomas Wood Cc: Public transport/transit/shared taxi related topics Subject: Re: [Talk-transit] Naptan import Thomas Wood grand.edgemas...@gmail.com schrieb: 2009/7/30 Christoph Böhme christ...@b3e.net: 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 I have run JOSM's validator over it to clean up some duplicate ways, and the more obviously incorrect polygon geometries (West Mids had a weird doubleback by the look of it) a few have overlapping segments, but I've chosen to ignore their 'errorness'. http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/2008301 Good idea to use JOSM's validator, I should have done it myself ... The incorrect geometries are converted directly from the NPTG data. Some of the polygons there have duplicate nodes. Removing the duplicate nodes was a sensible choice, I think. I had a look at the very distorted Plusbus Zone for Rye. Its strange shape seems to stem from the fact that it simple spans four villages and follows the road between them. I think there are similar reasons for the other errors. Thank you checking and importing the changeset! Christoph -- 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 ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
[Talk-transit] NaPTAN Import
I think all outstanding coding issues have now been dealt with. There's one minor tagging issue to address - should the source tag be on the data or changesets. Otherwise, a test upload of the Surrey data is visible here - http://api06.dev.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/394 Comments welcomed. We're then ready to begin uploading to the main database. I will fetch a fresh copy of the NaPTAN data now, as agreed earlier last month. -- Regards, Thomas Wood (Edgemaster) ___ 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: I think all outstanding coding issues have now been dealt with. There's one minor tagging issue to address - should the source tag be on the data or changesets. Since the source tag applies to the whole changeset it makes sense to tag only the changeset. However, I believe editors do not display changeset tags at the moment. This means changeset tags are basically not visible when you edit data. While it can be handy to see the source of an element when you edit it (e.g. I'm much less relucant to move NPE-sourced data if it does not fit with my tracks than surveyed data) this should not be a problem with the naptan-import. The naptan:-tags are a very obvious hint where the data is coming from. So, I'd vote for placing the source-tag at the changeset. Otherwise, a test upload of the Surrey data is visible here - http://api06.dev.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/394 Comments welcomed. Could it be that the tags are missing? All the nodes I have looked at are empty (http://api06.dev.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/416977, for example) 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
Re: [Talk-transit] NaPTAN Import
Thomas Wood grand.edgemas...@gmail.com schrieb: 2009/8/1 Christoph Böhme christ...@b3e.net: Thomas Wood grand.edgemas...@gmail.com schrieb: Otherwise, a test upload of the Surrey data is visible here - http://api06.dev.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/394 Comments welcomed. Could it be that the tags are missing? All the nodes I have looked at are empty (http://api06.dev.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/416977, for example) Ooops, I linked the wrong changeset! http://api06.dev.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/389 was my intent. That looks much better :-) I noticed that the bus stops are all tagged with highway=bus_stop. Is this intentional? I thought this should depend on what people wished for their local area. Cheers, Christoph ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Naptan import
2009/7/30 Christoph Böhme christ...@b3e.net: 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 I have run JOSM's validator over it to clean up some duplicate ways, and the more obviously incorrect polygon geometries (West Mids had a weird doubleback by the look of it) a few have overlapping segments, but I've chosen to ignore their 'errorness'. http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/2008301 -- Regards, Thomas Wood (Edgemaster) ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] NaPTAN Import
2009/8/1 Christoph Böhme christ...@b3e.net: Thomas Wood grand.edgemas...@gmail.com schrieb: 2009/8/1 Christoph Böhme christ...@b3e.net: Thomas Wood grand.edgemas...@gmail.com schrieb: Otherwise, a test upload of the Surrey data is visible here - http://api06.dev.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/394 Comments welcomed. Could it be that the tags are missing? All the nodes I have looked at are empty (http://api06.dev.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/416977, for example) Ooops, I linked the wrong changeset! http://api06.dev.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/389 was my intent. That looks much better :-) I noticed that the bus stops are all tagged with highway=bus_stop. Is this intentional? I thought this should depend on what people wished for their local area. Cheers, Christoph It is optional, by default I test with it enabled, it requires an extra command-line option to disable. So far most people have chosen for it to be on though - http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/NaPTAN/Request_for_Import -- Regards, Thomas Wood (Edgemaster) ___ 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: 2009/7/30 Christoph Böhme christ...@b3e.net: 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 I have run JOSM's validator over it to clean up some duplicate ways, and the more obviously incorrect polygon geometries (West Mids had a weird doubleback by the look of it) a few have overlapping segments, but I've chosen to ignore their 'errorness'. http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/2008301 Good idea to use JOSM's validator, I should have done it myself ... The incorrect geometries are converted directly from the NPTG data. Some of the polygons there have duplicate nodes. Removing the duplicate nodes was a sensible choice, I think. I had a look at the very distorted Plusbus Zone for Rye. Its strange shape seems to stem from the fact that it simple spans four villages and follows the road between them. I think there are similar reasons for the other errors. Thank you checking and importing the changeset! Christoph -- Regards, Thomas Wood (Edgemaster) ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Naptan import
2009/7/29 Thomas Wood grand.edgemas...@gmail.com: 2009/7/29 Christoph Böhme christ...@b3e.net: [snip] - Alternative names (e.g. welsh names) NaPTAN includes this too, I was going to check whether the functionality was required as we started on Welsh/Scottish regions, I can't remember the reason for not implementing it immediately other than awkwardness of the way I was parsing. [snip] I've now done a check on the Feb NaPTAN source files, there are no language sections that seriously need to be considered, there are only two regions that used them - East Sussex and Perth Kinross. The East Sussex reference was Indicator xml:lang=gaadj/Indicator, which is obviously rubbish. All the Perth Kinross references were on the Name element, and referenced /Welsh/, a few examples: Name xml:lang=cySouth Street/Name Name xml:lang=cyPost Office/Name Name xml:lang=cyMain Entrance/Name A look through shows others, such as road names, but none that are obviously in Welsh. Thus it's fairly safe to disregard the functionality NaPTAN provides for alternative languages at this point. -- Regards, Thomas Wood (Edgemaster) ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Naptan import
Thomas Thanks for this - the East Sussex one is clearly wrong (not a lot of Gaelic spoken there) ... and is something we don't check on, and it hadn't been spotted before. I have asked the editor to correct it (to blank or en). I don't have that influence with Perth Kinross - though I will try. One of the NaPTAN editors used by some authorities had a propensity to default to CY - which presumably is what has happened in this case. As you say, having alerted me to these issues, you can just ignore language flags at present. Best wishes Roger -Original Message- From: talk-transit-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-transit-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Wood Sent: 31 July 2009 16:14 To: Public transport/transit/shared taxi related topics Subject: Re: [Talk-transit] Naptan import 2009/7/29 Thomas Wood grand.edgemas...@gmail.com: 2009/7/29 Christoph Böhme christ...@b3e.net: [snip] - Alternative names (e.g. welsh names) NaPTAN includes this too, I was going to check whether the functionality was required as we started on Welsh/Scottish regions, I can't remember the reason for not implementing it immediately other than awkwardness of the way I was parsing. [snip] I've now done a check on the Feb NaPTAN source files, there are no language sections that seriously need to be considered, there are only two regions that used them - East Sussex and Perth Kinross. The East Sussex reference was Indicator xml:lang=gaadj/Indicator, which is obviously rubbish. All the Perth Kinross references were on the Name element, and referenced /Welsh/, a few examples: Name xml:lang=cySouth Street/Name Name xml:lang=cyPost Office/Name Name xml:lang=cyMain Entrance/Name A look through shows others, such as road names, but none that are obviously in Welsh. Thus it's fairly safe to disregard the functionality NaPTAN provides for alternative languages at this point. -- 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
Christoph Böhme christ...@b3e.net wrote: Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com schrieb: I am also aware that there is a 50K place gazetteer sitting there untouched - last week I was adding villages in Norfolk by hand and the data is sitting available in NPTG. I taught myself XSLT at the weekend and played a bit with the NPTG data. On http://www.mappa-mercia.org/nptg/ you can find some html-pages which show the hierarchies of and adjacencies between the localities in the NTPG data. I just noticed that Firefox 3.0 does only display a blank page on http://www.mappa-mercia.org/nptg/. I have fixed this now in case someone is still interested in the report. Christoph ___ 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] 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
Re: [Talk-transit] Naptan import
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. 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. 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. 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
Re: [Talk-transit] Naptan import
On 28 Jul 2009, at 18:41, Christoph Böhme wrote: o...@edwardbetts.com schrieb: Christoph Böhme christ...@b3e.net wrote: 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. I'm afraid we can't use population data, it is under Crown Copyright. I don't know much about the licencing but I find it slightly odd that Wikipedia can distribute its contents under a CC-BY-SA licene when it contains information that is under a more restrictive licence. How am I supposed to know that population numbers are not covered by the CC-BY-SA licence? I don't want to start a huge discussion here about the legal issues of using the population numbers. I'm just curious to learn why Crown Copyrighted data can be in Wikipedia. All information in Wikipedia must be sourced from elsewhere because it must be verifiable. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability) References should be to reputable sources, such as top newspapers etc. There are guidelines ensuring that copyright material is not used excessively (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content) but in summary it seems that as long as an article is made of information taken from many sources and written for Wikipedia and is not cut and pasted from one source then it has been 'freed'. It is then possible to take information from Wikipedia and reuse it with acknowledgement as per the following: Permission to reproduce and modify text on Wikipedia has already been granted to anyone anywhere by the authors of individual articles as long as such reproduction and modification complies with licensing terms (see below and Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks for specific terms). Images may or may not permit reuse and modification; the conditions for reproduction of each image should be individually checked. The only exceptions are those cases in which editors have violated Wikipedia policy by uploading copyrighted material without authorization, or with copyright licensing terms which are incompatible with those Wikipedia authors have applied to the rest of Wikipedia content. While such material is present on the Wikipedia (before it is detected and removed), it will be a copyright violation to copy it. For permission to use it, one must contact the owner of the copyright of the text or illustration in question; often, but not always, this will be the original author. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights Regards, Peter Christoph -- Edward. ___ 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] 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
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. 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
2009/7/26 Christoph Böhme christ...@b3e.net: I am happy to continue working on the NPTG import if Thomas does not mind. Yes, that's fine, NPTG isn't really an interest of mine, as I think I insinuated on the wikipage writeup of the format. 2009/7/27 Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com: My vote is to get on with it - the NPTG and NaPTAN imports are different enough that they can be handled separately. If Thomas focuses on the NaPTAN import (or hands it over to someone) and you do the NPTG then I think we will get there faster. I am willing to continue. I've just spent the past few days fixing and refactoring the bulk_upload.py script. I just need to write a wrapper for it to simplify the NaPTAN uploads, and we're good to go. Would it be worth creating a NPTG Import wiki page and an NPTG Import user to do the actual import - ie, keep the documentation and audit trail for the two imports separate? So far they're quite closely linked on the wiki, a separate NPTG Import user would probably make sense. 2009/7/22 Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com: Do we need to set up a wiki page where people can request imports for their authority or are we going to do it without that? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/NaPTAN/Request_for_Import I need to flesh out what the column headings mean. -- Regards, Thomas Wood (Edgemaster) ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Naptan import
Peter 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. NPTG is NOT a POI directory - and whilst there are some incorrectly created localities for POIs we are seeking to get them removed unless they genuinely define a locality (so the only ones that are appropriate are those which relate to large area POIs that do not sit happily within general-purpose POIs. The data that is recognised as valid at present is only that which appears in v2 CSV lists ... anything which is in the XML that is not in the CSV output is almost certainly not populated and certainly should be ignored. Roger -Original Message- From: talk-transit-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-transit-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Peter Miller Sent: 27 July 2009 08:52 To: Christoph Böhme Cc: talk-transit@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-transit] Naptan import On 26 Jul 2009, at 22:14, Christoph Böhme wrote: Hi Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com schrieb: I am also aware that there is a 50K place gazetteer sitting there untouched - last week I was adding villages in Norfolk by hand and the data is sitting available in NPTG. I taught myself XSLT at the weekend and played a bit with the NPTG data. On http://www.mappa-mercia.org/nptg/ you can find some html- pages which show the hierarchies of and adjacencies between the localities in the NTPG data. I also created a copy of the NOVAM viewer and changed it to display NTPG data instead of bus stops: http://www.mappa-mercia.org/cgi-bin/nptg.wsgi/viewer.html Great stuff, and clearly there are many additional place-names in NPTG that are not in OSM a present in many parts of the county. I checked North Norfolk and bits of Scotland and there are a good number of additional places. I have not changed any of the texts/images yet, so the localities will be displayed as bus stops :-). I will try to import an excerpt of place names from OSM tomorrow so that we can compare both data sets. From what I have seen so far an import should not be too difficult. The only difficulties I expect are the hierarchies and the classification of the localities. Does anyone know the current way to tag hierarchies of places? I had a look at the wiki and there seem to be two approaches: is_in and relations. With the addition of actual borders there is also the possibility of defining hierarchies purely geometrical. The location classifications in the NPTG seem to be relatively coarse. Everything below a parish is either a New Entry (Add) or a Locality. We need to see how this can be mapped to POI types in OSM. SourceLocalityType is, I think, information about where the data came from in the first place into NPTG and is not relevant for our purposes, and certainly into the classification field. The LocalityClassification field should be more useful and should contain city, town, village, hamlet, suburb, urbancentre, place of interest, other, or unrecorded. I am not sure how well this field is populated - possibly it is not well populated at all. UrbanCentre can possibly be ignored. The field may be well populated in some parts of the country and not in other. I am not sure how much NPTG is used for Points of Interest. There is a POI model in NPTG but possibly we treat this separately or not at all or import the data as invisible to start with. My main interest is the locality names and the main technical job will probably be to spot duplicates with what is in OSM already. See page 69 in the NaPTAN and NPTG scheme guide for more details of the formatting. http://www.naptan.org.uk/documentation.htm Do you need help with the NaPTAN import or are you just about ready to do the work? Do we need to set up a wiki page where people can request imports for their authority or are we going to do it without that? It would be really really good to get NaPTAN in and in soon. There are people keen to get on with sorting the data out in their areas who are sitting on their hands at present, the professional transport community is watching what is happening closely, and there are also possibly other datasets from UK authorities that could come our way when we have completed this one. I am happy to continue working on the NPTG import if Thomas does not mind. My vote is to get on with it - the NPTG and NaPTAN imports are different enough that they can be handled separately. If Thomas focuses on the NaPTAN import (or hands it over to someone) and you do the NPTG then I
Re: [Talk-transit] Naptan import
Good evening, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com schrieb: On 26 Jul 2009, at 22:14, Christoph Böhme wrote: I also created a copy of the NOVAM viewer and changed it to display NTPG data instead of bus stops: http://www.mappa-mercia.org/cgi-bin/nptg.wsgi/viewer.html Great stuff, and clearly there are many additional place-names in NPTG that are not in OSM a present in many parts of the county. I checked North Norfolk and bits of Scotland and there are a good number of additional places. I have now also added all nodes with place=* tags from OSM. The NPTG import will really add a lot of additional places! OSM has only 25397 places in the UK at the moment. However, I was a bit suprised to see some hamlets in the OSM data which are not in the NPTG data. Do you know of any gaps in the NPTG data? The LocalityClassification field should be more useful and should contain city, town, village, hamlet, suburb, urbancentre, place of interest, other, or unrecorded. I am not sure how well this field is populated - possibly it is not well populated at all. UrbanCentre can possibly be ignored. The LocalityClassification tag is used 856 times in the dataset. That is about 2% of all localities. The field may be well populated in some parts of the country and not in other. I am not sure how much NPTG is used for Points of Interest. There is a POI model in NPTG but possibly we treat this separately or not at all or import the data as invisible to start with. My main interest is the locality names and the main technical job will probably be to spot duplicates with what is in OSM already. Finding duplicates should not be too difficult. We basically just need to check for each imported location if there are any places with the same name within a reasonable distance. Except for typos and different spellings that should work very well. The positions of locations in both datasets also match nicely which should make it even easier to find duplicates. Would it be worth creating a NPTG Import wiki page and an NPTG Import user to do the actual import - ie, keep the documentation and audit trail for the two imports separate? I am in favour of keeping them separate. Both datasets are fairly independent and we will probably use different methods to import them. Having everything on one wiki page will be confusing to users, who might be interested only in one of the imports. Cheers, Christoph ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Naptan import
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. Do you have any other ideas? Cheers, Christoph ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Naptan import
You ask about the omissions from NPTG. Perhaps it would be helpful if I described the history of creating NPTG and what the brief has been to local data editors in terms of what is or is not included in the database. NPTG started life as a national statistical gazetteer based on a collation of different statistical areas (parishes, journey to work areas, towns, cities, etc). A number of unwanted types of entity in that source data were marked as inactive (things like area parishes which cover several villages) - and local editors were briefed to remove other sources of duplication. We then had the difficulty of determining what is, and what is not, a locality. The guidance we have given has been that a locality is a place which locals would consider they lived in, worked in, were educated in etc ... and/or to which highway engineers would consider it appropriate to show on road direction signs. 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. 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 hope this helps your understanding of the background. Roger -Original Message- From: talk-transit-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-transit-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Christoph Böhme Sent: 27 July 2009 21:50 To: Peter Miller Cc: talk-transit@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-transit] Naptan import Good evening, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com schrieb: On 26 Jul 2009, at 22:14, Christoph Böhme wrote: I also created a copy of the NOVAM viewer and changed it to display NTPG data instead of bus stops: http://www.mappa-mercia.org/cgi-bin/nptg.wsgi/viewer.html Great stuff, and clearly there are many additional place-names in NPTG that are not in OSM a present in many parts of the county. I checked North Norfolk and bits of Scotland and there are a good number of additional places. I have now also added all nodes with place=* tags from OSM. The NPTG import will really add a lot of additional places! OSM has only 25397 places in the UK at the moment. However, I was a bit suprised to see some hamlets in the OSM data which are not in the NPTG data. Do you know of any gaps in the NPTG data? The LocalityClassification field should be more useful and should contain city, town, village, hamlet, suburb, urbancentre, place of interest, other, or unrecorded. I am not sure how well this field is populated - possibly it is not well populated at all. UrbanCentre can possibly be ignored. The LocalityClassification tag is used 856 times in the dataset. That is about 2% of all localities. The field may be well populated in some parts of the country and not in other. I am not sure how much NPTG is used for Points of Interest. There is a POI model in NPTG but possibly we treat this separately or not at all or import the data as invisible to start with. My main interest is the locality names and the main technical job will probably be to spot duplicates with what is in OSM already. Finding duplicates should not be too difficult. We basically just need to check for each imported location if there are any places with the same name within a reasonable distance. Except for typos and different spellings that should work very well. The positions of locations in both datasets also match nicely which should make it even easier to find duplicates. Would it be worth creating a NPTG Import wiki page and an NPTG Import user to do the actual import - ie, keep the documentation and audit trail for the two imports separate? I am in favour of keeping them separate. Both datasets are fairly independent and we will probably use different methods to import them. Having everything on one wiki page will be confusing to users, who might be interested only in one of the imports. 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
Re: [Talk-transit] Naptan import
One other possibility that might work would be to look at the number of bus stops associated with a locality - something fairly easy to measure from NaPTAN. Combine this with the parent / child locality relationship could give you a way of expressing a sort of locality type classification. Roger -Original Message- From: Christoph Böhme [mailto:christ...@b3e.net] Sent: 27 July 2009 22:14 To: ro...@slevin.plus.com Cc: 'Public transport/transit/shared taxi related topics' Subject: Re: [Talk-transit] Naptan import 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. Do you have any other ideas? Cheers, Christoph ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Naptan import
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. Do you have any other ideas? Ask for local experts. I have maintained a list of places in East Yorkshire in the wiki. There are about 280 villages and hamlets. I've visited almost 90% to map them and assess if they are really still a place. Many have been added from NPE and they just don't exist on the ground any more. I then judge village versus hamlet on criteria, like size, is there a school, church, shop etc. and what does the Wikipedia entry or other web sites say. I then add local knowledge. Having done this work I would prefer that a bulk upload doesn't add places in the county without prior discussion. You would probably be able to find someone to do a sanity check like this for many (most? all?) areas. My experience is that sources of UK places need human intervention to make them useful. Cheers, Chris ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Naptan import
Hi Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com schrieb: I am also aware that there is a 50K place gazetteer sitting there untouched - last week I was adding villages in Norfolk by hand and the data is sitting available in NPTG. I taught myself XSLT at the weekend and played a bit with the NPTG data. On http://www.mappa-mercia.org/nptg/ you can find some html-pages which show the hierarchies of and adjacencies between the localities in the NTPG data. I also created a copy of the NOVAM viewer and changed it to display NTPG data instead of bus stops: http://www.mappa-mercia.org/cgi-bin/nptg.wsgi/viewer.html I have not changed any of the texts/images yet, so the localities will be displayed as bus stops :-). I will try to import an excerpt of place names from OSM tomorrow so that we can compare both data sets. From what I have seen so far an import should not be too difficult. The only difficulties I expect are the hierarchies and the classification of the localities. Does anyone know the current way to tag hierarchies of places? I had a look at the wiki and there seem to be two approaches: is_in and relations. With the addition of actual borders there is also the possibility of defining hierarchies purely geometrical. The location classifications in the NPTG seem to be relatively coarse. Everything below a parish is either a New Entry (Add) or a Locality. We need to see how this can be mapped to POI types in OSM. Do you need help with the NaPTAN import or are you just about ready to do the work? Do we need to set up a wiki page where people can request imports for their authority or are we going to do it without that? I am happy to continue working on the NPTG import if Thomas does not mind. Christoph ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Naptan import
2009/7/22 Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com: On 20 Jul 2009, at 14:35, Thomas Wood wrote: 2009/7/20 Peter J Stoner stone...@mytraveline.info: In message on 20 Jul 2009, Ed Loach wrote: I'm assuming that the naptan import when it happens will be as at a certain point in time, and won't include any new bus stops since that time? I'm asking because a bus route has changed in the last week or so that now passes my house both ways instead of just one way and rather than add bus stops on the other side of the road they've added a taped message Buses stop here and opposite to each of the existing bus stops on the road. Ed If the Transport authority has done its job properly then we will expect to see Custom and Practice stops appear in NaPTAN opposite the snip The refreshed data is yet to be downloaded, so depending on the responsiveness of the LA, the stops may be in there by the time I get around to finalising the import. I am conscious that it is now over 6 months since the data was offered. I do realise that a lot of technical work and familiarisation has been taking place but it would be great to be able to complete the import and move on. I am also aware that there is a 50K place gazetteer sitting there untouched - last week I was adding villages in Norfolk by hand and the data is sitting available in NPTG. It is, we need to start thinking about what we can do with it. Do you need help with the NaPTAN import or are you just about ready to do the work? Do we need to set up a wiki page where people can request imports for their authority or are we going to do it without that? I've been putting off working on it for a while as slightly more interesting projects seem to keep coming my way. Anyway, I'm now checking that the new tools that will be used to upload the data that have been written for 0.6 will meet our needs. For this I'm doing a few uploads to a dev server to see what the imported data looks like with regards the created changesets etc. I'm probably going to have to modify the uploader to record object ids that are being stored for missing references to stop areas. -- Regards, Thomas Wood (Edgemaster) ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Naptan import
2009/7/22 Thomas Wood grand.edgemas...@gmail.com: 2009/7/22 Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com: On 20 Jul 2009, at 14:35, Thomas Wood wrote: 2009/7/20 Peter J Stoner stone...@mytraveline.info: In message on 20 Jul 2009, Ed Loach wrote: I'm assuming that the naptan import when it happens will be as at a certain point in time, and won't include any new bus stops since that time? I'm asking because a bus route has changed in the last week or so that now passes my house both ways instead of just one way and rather than add bus stops on the other side of the road they've added a taped message Buses stop here and opposite to each of the existing bus stops on the road. Ed If the Transport authority has done its job properly then we will expect to see Custom and Practice stops appear in NaPTAN opposite the snip The refreshed data is yet to be downloaded, so depending on the responsiveness of the LA, the stops may be in there by the time I get around to finalising the import. I am conscious that it is now over 6 months since the data was offered. I do realise that a lot of technical work and familiarisation has been taking place but it would be great to be able to complete the import and move on. I am also aware that there is a 50K place gazetteer sitting there untouched - last week I was adding villages in Norfolk by hand and the data is sitting available in NPTG. It is, we need to start thinking about what we can do with it. Do you need help with the NaPTAN import or are you just about ready to do the work? Do we need to set up a wiki page where people can request imports for their authority or are we going to do it without that? I've been putting off working on it for a while as slightly more interesting projects seem to keep coming my way. Anyway, I'm now checking that the new tools that will be used to upload the data that have been written for 0.6 will meet our needs. For this I'm doing a few uploads to a dev server to see what the imported data looks like with regards the created changesets etc. I'm probably going to have to modify the uploader to record object ids that are being stored for missing references to stop areas. I have just done a fairly thorough review of both the 0.6 API bulk upload scripts. Neither works fully as expected. I have three options, fix the python one, finish the php one, or port the 0.5 perl one... The first option is currently looking most tempting. -- Regards, Thomas Wood (Edgemaster) ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
[Talk-transit] Naptan import
I'm assuming that the naptan import when it happens will be as at a certain point in time, and won't include any new bus stops since that time? I'm asking because a bus route has changed in the last week or so that now passes my house both ways instead of just one way and rather than add bus stops on the other side of the road they've added a taped message Buses stop here and opposite to each of the existing bus stops on the road. Ed ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] NaPTAN import
2009/4/3 Brian Prangle bpran...@googlemail.com: Hi Thomas From our west mids meeting last night a number of requests and queries came up 1.Can you import Wolverhampton - the guys up there are ready to have a crack Ok, done. 2. Coventry will not be far behind but hold off until we've checked with the major contributors there 3. We'd like to see the NaPTAN fields LocalityName and Bearing imported This is an NPTG field, none of the NPTG stuff has been looked at yet. 4. We're not sure if stoptypes CUS, TXR STR BCQ and BCS have been imported CUS are in, but not tagged in data, there's no TXR or STR in the West Mids dataset, BCQ, BCS are in, but not tagged as such since they're essentially the same as BCT for our purposes. 5. We're not sure if your local_ref field is working correctly -essentially it's just repeating the naptan:Indicator field It's a filtered version of the Indicator field, where a reference can be pulled from it intelligibly. I'll be writing a short set of guidelines and also a summary of what we've found for the import wiki page - to be published shortly As a group we've decided to rely on our gps surveys of where bus stops are and move the NaPTAN data to that location for merger with our data. The feeling is that earlier bus stop surveys need to be repeated much more precisely - examining some of our earlier data suggest we weren't as accurate as we needed to be. Christophe seems to be making good progress with the visual verify/merge tool. Peter - we're very keen to get our hands on aerial imagery - what needs to happen to get this under way? Regards Brian -- Regards, Thomas Wood (Edgemaster) ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] NaPTAN import starts - Birmingham trial area first
In message 49d135f1.9010...@00l.de Gerrit Lammert o...@00l.de wrote: Hi. I'm exited to see how this works out. Beeing curious, I just zoomed in into Birmingham and noticed two things: 1) Imported stops seem to be close to the already mapped ones but off by some meters 2) Some Streets seem to consist entirely of bus_stops. (http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.479838lon=-1.896227zoom=18lay ers=B000FTF) Is this real?? Yes it is -- Peter J Stoner UK Regional Coordinator Traveline www.travelinedata.org.uk a trading name of Intelligent Travel Solutions Ltd company number 3826797 Drury House, 34-43 Russell Street, LONDON WC2B 5HA ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] NaPTAN import starts - Birmingham trial area first
Hi. I'm exited to see how this works out. Beeing curious, I just zoomed in into Birmingham and noticed two things: 1) Imported stops seem to be close to the already mapped ones but off by some meters 2) Some Streets seem to consist entirely of bus_stops. (http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.479838lon=-1.896227zoom=18layers=B000FTF) Is this real?? Gerrit ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] NaPTAN import
2009/3/19 Thomas Wood grand.edgemas...@gmail.com: - Run a conversion and filter on the West Midlands data set for just items in Birmingham. I've now written the filtering code for the converter script, I think all that's left to be done is to test the file upload against a test OSM api, to check that the bulk_upload script is suitable for the purpose. Then we should continue with the first few steps as outlined previously. I'm looking to target it to just before or after the weekend. (By the way, there seem to be 4338 stops in Birmingham in the dataset I'm playing with, does this sound reasonable?) -- Regards, Thomas Wood (Edgemaster) ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] NaPTAN import
2009/3/19 Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com: On 19 Mar 2009, at 17:18, Thomas Wood wrote: Yes, this is the first message since the confirmation we can use the data. I did a little more tweaking to the StopArea code at the weekend (not that it matters for the WestMids data). I propose we now do the following: - Download the whole NaPTAN dataset, so to simplify the update process in the future (it'll be easier to merge a complete data set with a single noted timestamp) - Run a conversion and filter on the West Midlands data set for just items in Birmingham. - Show the list 5 or so example stops to show how they've been converted, so we can fix any issues before an import. (And possibly produce a slimmed down slippymap showing the density of data we're importing). If a consensus is reached, we'll run an import under the NaPTAN account. (http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/NaPTAN, which I currently have control of). - Allow Birmingham mappers to trawl the data and work on a set of guidelines of how to bring the data more in-line with OSM, where required. - Open the import to other talk-gb regions. I also propose that the official datasets are kept (privately), converted, and uploaded on/from the OSM dev machine rather than one of our personal ones. All sounds good to me. When you create the NaPTAN Import user do give that user a description saying what it is being used for and also give a link to the 'controllers' of that user, ie yourself and I would suggest we have at least one other person who knows the password of the NaPTAN Import user. The account has been in existence for the past few weeks, as yet unused. Who wants to be the second password holder? -- Regards, Thomas Wood (Edgemaster) ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] NaPTAN import
Hi all has there been any progress with the NaPTAN import yet? The list has been very quiet recently. I started programming the visual merge tool but I have not yet reached a point where there is something to show. I decided not to modify the busstop data in the osm database directly but to keep a seperate copy of the relevant nodes that can be merged into the database at some point when we tidied it up (basically like the dracos tool does it). Just wanted to let you know that I have not given up on the import ... Christoph Brian Prangle bpran...@googlemail.com schrieb: Hi everyone Summarising where I believe we've got to: 1. Thomas: schedule for completion - we're entirely in your hands - agree it's best to avoid the API update. 2. Birmingham only for test import 3. No highway=bus_stop tags, enabling us to merge/verify existing OSM data ( Christophe's visual tool to eventually solve this manual task) BUT tag taxi ranks as amenity=taxi 4. Import on the basis of the current selection/naming in naptan tagging wiki. Imports to be carried out by new user naptan 5. Plusbus zones and stop areas - import the naptan data only and leave doing anything with it until the debate on stopareas reaches a conclusion 6. Roger/Peter: is our current method of accessing the data OK? Or do you have to explicitly issue us with a dataset (perhaps the data publicly available for test is not the most current/accurate?) 7. Andy: agree on re-tagging w mids bus stops with route_ref and using semicolons instead of pipes to separate route nos in order to standardise - presume you have an automated routine for this? 8. Update needed on wiki regarding bus_stops (Andy? I'm happy to do a first draft for you to edit before publication - or better still submit it to this discussion list) Parked for later discussion/solution a)Stopareas (see above) b)Big-bang vs regional adoption (probably a talk gb discussion once Birmingham data and process completed) c)handling NaPTAN bus_stop updates d) importing further NaPTAN public transport data e) user feedback - there's a wide range of skill and experience in the OSM community and there are certain to be problems. An explicit route needed? f) how to maintain data integrity once it's imported and inexperienced users potentially delete data that other users have written applications that rely on it being there. I guess this is general problem not specific to this project- but this is a donated dataset and potentially could drive a considerable number of applications Unless there are any strong objections,(or I've ommitted anything from the discussions) I'd like to think we can close the discussion on the import and let Thomas get on with finishing the coding. Thank you everyone for your time and contributions We can continue discussion on the parked items and anything else that doesn't impact the coding for the first live Birmingham import Regards Brian ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
