What has not been mentioned specifically in this thread (although I know Peter is very much aware of it) is that there is an approved European Technical Specification (Identification of Fixed Objects in Public Transport - IFOPT) that has built on the experience of NaPTAN and other related work to date, and covers the same ground. A colleague is putting together some comments on how the German work relates to IFOPT. Early indications are that the matching of fundamentals is good (as might be expected - given that NaPTAN was a key input to IFOPT) ... but I hope something on this will be posted here in the next few days.
Roger -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Peter Miller Sent: 29 May 2009 06:08 To: Thomas Wood Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Talk-transit] Public transport workshop in Germany On 29 May 2009, at 00:23, Thomas Wood wrote: > I must congratulate the group for producing what seems to be a good > clear document covering afaics most issues that have been raised here > in the past. > It looks like it's somewhat compatible with the european > Transmodel/IFOPT standards which is a promising step. As others have > noted, where possible we want to keep terminology close to existing > standards, so to simplify things when working with data providers and > those in the transit industry in the future, although this should not > block access to the standard OSMer. > > One concern I have (and one that's probably been expressed many times > on talk@ etc) is the use of disused=*, rather than adjusting the > 'primary' tag on the feature. (eg, railway=disused disused=light_rail > etc) > > Anyway, well done, when I get my exams for this summer over with, I'll > be pleased to try getting the NaPTAN data (more) in-line with whatever > revision of this spec we have by then. > Agreed, This is a very good piece of work. We are getting some other feedback together at the moment. Can we spend a few days finessing it before doing any serious tagging from it. Can I suggest that this new page should be moved out of Oxomoato's private pages and into the main wiki. Out of interest where does this leave the following two proposals? Unified StopArea http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/unified_stoparea QROTI http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/QROTI Should we review these other proposals, integrate any appropriate ideas and then politely suggest that people refer to this new proposal for guidance rather than to the other two pages? Would anyone be offended by that? Regards, Peter > On 28/05/2009, Jochen Topf <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi! >> >> The weekend before last we had a workshop in Karlsruhe, Germany on >> the >> topic of public transport in OSM. The idea was to bring interested >> people together to improve the modelling of public transport >> infrastructure and networks in OSM. >> >> The results have now been documented. See >> http://blog.geofabrik.de/?p=23 for details. >> >> Jochen >> -- >> Jochen Topf [email protected] http://www.remote.org/jochen/ >> +49-721-388298 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Talk-transit mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit >> > > > -- > Regards, > Thomas Wood > (Edgemaster) > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-transit mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit _______________________________________________ Talk-transit mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit _______________________________________________ Talk-transit mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
