What's happening with the imports at the moment, are they progressing? North Yorkshire would be useful for me, well York and the area north as far as Thirsk anyway (~ 25 miles).
Regards, Steve > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Christoph Böhme" <[email protected]> > To: "Tom Chance" <[email protected]> > Cc: "Public transport/transit/shared taxi related topics" > <[email protected]>, [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] XAPI lagging behind by days? > Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 22:26:42 +0000 > > > Tom Chance <[email protected]> schrieb: > > > On 23 March 2010 13:20, Christoph Boehme <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Well, I just updated the Birmingham scheme two days ago to accept > > > naptan:verified=yes, because Andy asked for it. > > > > > > Perhaps it makes sense to reorganise the schemes to have only one > > > basic scheme which displays verification status, CUS and > > > notes/errors and a number of specialised schemes building on top of > > > the basic one for information that is not available everywhere like > > > route references, shelter information and asset references. > > > > > > > > That sounds sensible. The basic scheme would presumably be enough for > > generalist mappers like me to be sure we're tidying NAPTAN up, without > > needing all the transport geek data I've never heard of? > > Yes, exactly. My current plan is to have four types of stops in the > basic scheme: > > 1. Non-NaPTAN stops: Stops without naptan:*-tags. Basically plain > old OSM bus stops. > 2. Unverified NaPTAN stops: Stops from the NaPTAN import which > have a naptan:verified=no tag or which are missing the > highway=bus_stop tag. > 3. Verified NaPTAN stops: Stops tagged as hightway=bus_stop and with > either no naptan:verified tag or a naptan:verified=yes tag. > 4. CUS-stops: Stops with naptan:BusStopType=CUS because they are not > marked on the ground and cannot be verified. > > Extended schemes would be: > > 1. Stops with notes: Highlight stops with a note or naptan:error tag > 2. Route information: Highlight stops which are missing the route_ref > tag. > 3. Shelter and asset refs: Highlight bus stops which have shelter=yes > and no asset_ref or which have no shelter tag at all (this might be > quite Birmingham specific). > 4. Anything else? > > I suggest to keep the old schemes but rename them to the name of the > public transport network they apply to (e.g. "Transport West Midlands" > for Birmingham), since they are based on the amount of information that > is available on the signs used by a particular network. > > Best, > Christoph > > > Best, > > Tom > > > > -- http://tom.acrewoods.net http://twitter.com/tom_chance > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-GB mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > -- _______________________________________________ Surf the Web in a faster, safer and easier way: Download Opera 9 at http://www.opera.com Powered by Outblaze _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
