naptan:verified=no dates back to the original import in 2009 and was there to indicate the bus stop needed surveying to verify its position- when a survey was done the process was for this tag to be deleted. Might be good to adopt this process here too?
Regards Brian On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 at 16:10, Dave F via Talk-GB <[email protected]> wrote: > > Please, please don't use public_transport=platform unless you're > actually mapping an actual, physical, raised object, similar to railway > platforms. > > 'platform' has been misappropriated from the physical railway=platform > by those who developed the PT schema to mean an arbitrary area of > pavement that's somewhere, roughly near where a bus stops. In OSM we map > *physical* objects only. > > It has now been regressed one stage further, being superfluously added > to highway=bus_stop nodes. So much of the PT schema is just duplicating > valid, existing data which leads to confusion & errors. It is a waste of > time & effort. > > ------ > > if you're adding the bus stop & your source is naptan how can > naptan:verified=no? > > DaveF > > > On 02/07/2019 11:06, Ed Loach wrote: > > David wrote: > > > >> Given that few people like maintenance work, if you can't map all > >> the > >> stops from first principles, it is very unlikely that imported ones will > >> get maintained. Retaining the NaPTAN tagging is important in > >> allowing > >> any later remerge of the updated NaPTAN data. > > I've been regularly updating local bus route relations (all now upgraded > to PT schema v2) in Tendring [1], Colchester [1] and Maldon [2] areas of > Essex. This involves more maintenance than just the bus stops (which for > Essex were imported some years ago). I've written a program to help me with > this, comparing the opendata with the OSM data so I can work out what needs > updating. > > > > Occasionally I encounter a bus stop used by a bus route which wasn't > imported previously. In these cases I add the stop from NaPTAN (based on > their latitude and longitude) and add the tags: > > highway=bus_stop > > public_transport=platform > > source=naptan > > naptan:verified=no > > name=(NaPTAN name) > > naptan:AtcoCode=(whatever) > > naptan:NaptanCode=(whatever) > > > > If the bus stop type is not MKD I add > > > > naptan:BusStopType=(bus stop type) > > > > and if the status is not "act" I add > > > > naptan:Status=(status) > > > > This last one is very rare as I think it is only once that I've found a > deleted bus stop still part of a bus route (the road had been diverted and > new stops installed - the old stop was on what is now a cycle path). > > > >> Another problem with NaPTAN stops, which applies to non-OSM > >> users as > >> well is that they have virtual stops in Hail and Ride areas. Routers > >> seem to only like people boarding at those place, so, in my case, can > >> take me about 7 minutes out of my way against the direction of > >> travel, > >> so tell me I have missed a bus that could be easily caught. > > I'll agree with this. I've been adding them at the NaPTAN location as > described above if they aren't already in, but these are occasionally up > cul-de-sacs (usually at the start or end of the route). > > > > Ed > > > > [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tendring(Essex)/Bus_Routes > > [2] > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Maldon(Essex_District)/Bus_Routes > > > > > > > > --- > > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Talk-GB mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-GB mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb >
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
