Thomas Wood wrote: >Sent: 06 March 2009 5:38 PM >To: Brian Prangle >Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] >Subject: Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] [Talk-transit] NaPTAN data import > >2009/3/6 Brian Prangle <[email protected]>: >> Hi everyone >> >> We discussed at our West Mids meeting last night the best way forward. >Here >> is what we would like to see happen: >> >> 1. Proceeed with the import on the basis of the proposed naptan taggings. >> All imported data should have the naptan: prefix as we feel it is >important >> to identify the source of the data and differentiate it from OSMer- >generated >> data >> 2. If it's easy to code, generate ways between related nodes for things >> like plusbus zones, stopareas etc. We didn't discuss however how to tag >> these, so I guess just leave them untagged. If it's going to be difficult >> and slow down the implementation, then ignore it and just import the >nodes >> and we'll have to generate ways manually. > >StopAreas are very common in the London data that I've been testing >against, as noted in previous emails to the list, the converter does >convert the majority into relations. The only issues I'm having with >it is trying to keep list of the national StopAreas. I should tackle >this problem sometime this coming week. > >I guess a relation for a plusbus zone will also probably be good, a >polygon can be derived from it automatically, I think we'd have to >invent a new, creative relation scheme, since a stop area relation >doesn't suit it well. > >> 3. Rather than import for the whole West Midlands, just import for >> Birmingham as a test area - it's easier for us to cover as there fewer >bus >> stops in a smaller area, and it also won't piss off our neighbours in >> Coventry - most of us are based in Birmingham. > >That's fine, I think I'll add a bbox filtering option.
I spotted that the NAPTAN data included a "Town" flag. If you filter that field for "Birmingham" that should more than suffice for our initial test area. > >> 4. The import should not tag the data with highway=bus_stop. We'd rather >> have un-rendered nodes that we can see in the editors and then either >merge >> with existing data or "switch on" by tagging where we haven't yet >surveyed. >> It is OK however to tag taxiranks with amenity=taxi (very few people have >> been surveying and tagging these) > >I can just flip these tags fairly easily, so isn't much of a problem. > >> 5. Can we have a csv file of the data so we can keep track of our >> verification and record variations, problems on the ground etc. and >> co-ordinate activities so we don't go off duplicating effort? In the >future >> other OSMers will have the benefit of Christophe's visual tool to do >this. >> We'll give regular updates here on how we're faring and produce a short >> report summarising our experience for future imports. > >A csv file of the data, can you be more specific on _what_ you mean by >data? >The wiki is an excellent place for coordinating tidy-up projects. >Notes on changes can be stored on the nodes themselves, if suitable, >otherwise we'd need an annotation tool with Christophe's visual tool. Something we can sort easily and print off a sheet for the area being verified. Easy then to check stuff off when out mapping. > >> 6. As a local initiative we are proposing to cease using (and convert >> existing data) the ref=xx tag for identification plates we find on the >> ground as it doesn't currently match any naptan data (and so can't be >> regarded as a global standard reference) and we will use instead >> asset_ref=xxx. This is Andy's suggestion and as he's the one who's >entered >> most of this data and he'll have to do most of the work - we all agreed >> readily! > >Do we now want to import any suitable asset_refs (from whatever the >equivalent field is called) from naptan, where they exist (most suited >for other regions)? For the Birmingham data definitely import the asset data, just put it under a naptan namespace though rather than asset_ref because we will use asset_ref for what's on the ground, which for Brum is shorter than what's in the naptan data. > >> >> Let us know if there are any problems with this >> >> Regards >> >> Brian > >Regarding Peter's comments about obtaining the data, I'm already >getting it from the official site for testing the converter, since the >license they give there allows it explicitly. > >Regarding the data import more generally, do we have a rough timeline >of when we want this done by? >We should probably avoid the 0.6 and licensing changes, so we don't >create more work for ourselves than is absolutely required. > >Gerrit - NaPTAN references nodes as being part of a StopArea, somewhat >like our relation structure. The converter is already pulling them in >according to the unified stop area spec. (Except for not having the >stop-points on the road way, just beside, but thats just a moot point) > >-- >Regards, >Thomas Wood >(Edgemaster) Cheers Andy _______________________________________________ Talk-transit mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
