On 05/07/2019 13:19, Silent Spike wrote:
On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 1:02 PM Gareth L <o...@live.co.uk
<mailto:o...@live.co.uk>> wrote:
Forgive me if this is silly question/statement, but the adj/alt
names etc are in the naptan dataset. Wouldn’t it be better to have
the link made between the stop in OSM and the record in naptan
(using the codes prior mentioned).
My thinking is data consumers could link and retrieve values using
that. Merging the extra data values again might potentially
develop discrepancies over time.
I’d think the atco code is unique and (hopefully) not reused, but
the alt names etc could be modified over time.
A perfectly valid question and something I wonder also.
For example, the indicator field is somewhat meaningless to a data
consumer unless they know what it represents as per the NaPTAN schema
- so perhaps it's best left out of the OSM data?
FWIW I did actually append that to name when displaying those because it
"looked useful" (to append to the name and distinguish between other
identically named stops):
https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/SomeoneElse-style/blob/master/style.lua#L5010
As to the original question "Would there be any objections to an import
of the following scope" - certainly not from me. I wouldn't personally
use the PTv2 "platform" tag but its presence doesn't break anything.
The most interesting bit would be the "Manually conflate and review the
data before upload using JOSM" - any JOSM CSS style that you end up
using to highlight duplicates would be really useful, as would a basic
OSM diary entry describing the process and the end result.
Best Regards,
Andy
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
