Re: [Talk-transit] Should railway station relations includebusstops?
2009/9/14 Thomas Wood grand.edgemas...@gmail.com One point, naptan:verified=no is designed to be deleted, rather than changed to yes In this case maintaining the naptan tags whilst including other stops will be misleading when comparing how data is changed in the future. Maybe change the StopAreaCode to be a semicolon delimited list of the StopAreaCodes you moved the points from? Okay, have done this now: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/201171 Can someone delete these two relations (can't figure out how to do this in Potlatch): http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/199517 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/201160 It is my intention this week to focus on PT tagging in London. I need to dip myself into editing the map by hand again, I've been stuck in code land for too long. Great! Fancy a trip to Waterloo? :-) Frankie -- Frankie Roberto Experience Designer, Rattle 0114 2706977 http://www.rattlecentral.com ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Should railway station relations includebusstops?
2009/9/10 Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com It does appear to be a little complex around Waterloo and possibly wrong? Okay, so I've done a little 'tidying up'... There is now a single relation ( http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/201171) which contains all the bus stops near the station which are called 'Waterloo', or which are directly outside the station (node 277675366 seems to have been mapped by a user, rather than from the NaPTAN import, so is possibly a duplicate). The following 'local_ref' codes are included: A,B,C,F,H,J,K,N,S,V,W - indicating that there are quite a few missing (presuming they go from A to at least W without skipping any letters?) There are also 2 NaPTAN-created relations which now no longer have any members, http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/201160 and http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/199517 as I've moved all of these to the previous relation. The StopAreaCodes seem to be different (though only by the last letter) - so I don't know if these means that they have some administrative difference? What should we do with these relations? The train station is a separate relation ( http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/238792), which includes the building (as role=outline), a few shops, and now the ex-International platforms 20-25, (as ways, with stop points, alongside ways for each of the tracks). Platforms 1-19 are still to do... :-) The tube station is yet another relation ( http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/238793), which just contains 4 stop nodes on each of the tube line ways. I suggest that each of these 3 relations should belong to a parent 'Waterloo' relation, but I can't seem to currently do this within Potlatch. Can somebody else have a go (does JOSM support this?) Any other suggestions for improvements are welcome (particularly from people who live a bit closer...) Frankie The stop areas you refer to have type codes which are described in the NaPTAN schema document, but I am not clear that it is at all correct based on a quick look I also notice that many of the areas have duplicate names which also makes it harder to sort out. I believe that there is another relation in NaPTAN for the station that has not yet been imported into NaPTAN which makes it even more complicated. Let's use Waterloo as a test case for OSM. Bank/Monument would also be useful because it is given as an example in the NaPTAN documentation. Lets also focus on the stations given in the IFOPT documentation examples. Incidentally Waterloo is used as an example thoughout the IFOPT documentation. Possibly we should have a mapping party there (I passed though it yesterday as it happens). -- Frankie Roberto Experience Designer, Rattle 0114 2706977 http://www.rattlecentral.com ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Should railway station relations includebusstops?
One point, naptan:verified=no is designed to be deleted, rather than changed to yes In this case maintaining the naptan tags whilst including other stops will be misleading when comparing how data is changed in the future. Maybe change the StopAreaCode to be a semicolon delimited list of the StopAreaCodes you moved the points from? It is my intention this week to focus on PT tagging in London. I need to dip myself into editing the map by hand again, I've been stuck in code land for too long. 2009/9/14 Frankie Roberto fran...@frankieroberto.com: 2009/9/10 Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com It does appear to be a little complex around Waterloo and possibly wrong? Okay, so I've done a little 'tidying up'... There is now a single relation (http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/201171) which contains all the bus stops near the station which are called 'Waterloo', or which are directly outside the station (node 277675366 seems to have been mapped by a user, rather than from the NaPTAN import, so is possibly a duplicate). The following 'local_ref' codes are included: A,B,C,F,H,J,K,N,S,V,W - indicating that there are quite a few missing (presuming they go from A to at least W without skipping any letters?) There are also 2 NaPTAN-created relations which now no longer have any members, http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/201160 and http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/199517 as I've moved all of these to the previous relation. The StopAreaCodes seem to be different (though only by the last letter) - so I don't know if these means that they have some administrative difference? What should we do with these relations? The train station is a separate relation (http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/238792), which includes the building (as role=outline), a few shops, and now the ex-International platforms 20-25, (as ways, with stop points, alongside ways for each of the tracks). Platforms 1-19 are still to do... :-) The tube station is yet another relation (http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/238793), which just contains 4 stop nodes on each of the tube line ways. I suggest that each of these 3 relations should belong to a parent 'Waterloo' relation, but I can't seem to currently do this within Potlatch. Can somebody else have a go (does JOSM support this?) Any other suggestions for improvements are welcome (particularly from people who live a bit closer...) Frankie The stop areas you refer to have type codes which are described in the NaPTAN schema document, but I am not clear that it is at all correct based on a quick look I also notice that many of the areas have duplicate names which also makes it harder to sort out. I believe that there is another relation in NaPTAN for the station that has not yet been imported into NaPTAN which makes it even more complicated. Let's use Waterloo as a test case for OSM. Bank/Monument would also be useful because it is given as an example in the NaPTAN documentation. Lets also focus on the stations given in the IFOPT documentation examples. Incidentally Waterloo is used as an example thoughout the IFOPT documentation. Possibly we should have a mapping party there (I passed though it yesterday as it happens). -- Frankie Roberto Experience Designer, Rattle 0114 2706977 http://www.rattlecentral.com ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit -- Regards, Thomas Wood (Edgemaster) ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
Re: [Talk-transit] Should railway station relations includebusstops?
2009/9/10 Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com Let's use Waterloo as a test case for OSM. Bank/Monument would also be useful because it is given as an example in the NaPTAN documentation. Lets also focus on the stations given in the IFOPT documentation examples. Incidentally Waterloo is used as an example thoughout the IFOPT documentation. Okay, so I've just added two new relations for Waterloo (so now it has 5): * railway station = http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/238792 * tube station = http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/238793 I had to add stop nodes for the tube lines (didn't seem to be any existing ones). They are all tagged as role=stop on the relation. I'm not sure what tag we should be using on the nodes themselves. Sometimes we've used railway=station (which means they all display on the renderers), sometimes we've used railway=halt (as was originally proposed in http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/unified_stoparea, but I think this is wrong as railway=halt has historically been used for request stops). I've experimentally used railway=stop for Waterloo - these could be a good way of distinguishing stopping points from the 'station' nodes that are used in the simpler schema). Guess we also need to add the platforms for Waterloo (Wikipedia says there are 20), as well as some of the accesses (footbridges, etc). Frankie -- Frankie Roberto Experience Designer, Rattle 0114 2706977 http://www.rattlecentral.com ___ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
