Peter Miller wrote: >Sent: 26 June 2009 6:24 PM >To: Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) >Cc: 'Thomas Wood'; [email protected]; talk- >[email protected] >Subject: Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] [Talk-transit] NaPTAN and the new >PTtagging schema > > >On 26 Jun 2009, at 17:51, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote: > >> Peter Miller wrote: >>> Sent: 26 June 2009 4:41 PM >>> To: Thomas Wood >>> Cc: [email protected]; talk- >[email protected] >>> Subject: Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] [Talk-transit] NaPTAN and the new >>> PTtagging schema >>> >>> >>> Your suggestions below make a lot of sense. I would however very much >>> encourage you to include customary stops because they do indeed >>> 'exist' even though there is no physical pole. Consider a road that >>> doesn't have a name plate but when you people who live on the street >>> what it is called they tell you. Does the street have a name or does >>> it not - I suggest we would agree that it does? If a tree falls in a >>> wood and there is no one to hear it did it make a sound etc. >>> Customary >>> stops can be confirmed by looking for physical marks of vehicles >>> stopping or people standing around on the grass, from information at >>> the stop opposite or from asking bus drivers. I would suggest that >>> for >>> now we believe NaPTAN. >> >> These are easy to add in a final cleanup anyway, just by usage of >> the route. >> The problem with the NaPTan data is that there are loads of stops >> that are >> probably just not used at all, hence we leave them turned off >> (silent data). >> I agree that we could and probably should import customary stops but >> I don't >> think we should assume they are actual in-use stops and hence should >> leave >> them silent in the database until someone confirms and adds >> highway=bus_stop >> >> For other areas of the country I think its fine (with the exception >> of CUS >> stops) to go ahead straight away and add the highway=bus_stop where >> there >> are few existing mapped stops. Ideally a post to the local uses in >> the area >> would confirm either way what they would like to do. > >You seem to be putting out different messages in the two above >paragraphs. Are you saying you support the import of CUS stops or not. >Also are you suggesting that bus stops are set as 'real' (ie active) >stops. >
Yes, lets import them but not with the highway=bus_stop on them. Then OSMers can switch them on if they are in use or leave/delete them as they see fit. >Possibly Roger will have some views on how many unused stops there are >likely to be in the dataset. Looking at the Oct08 dataset there were >365,000 bus stops and 42,020 of them were unused at the time however >this doesn't necessarily mean that they don't exist, only that no >buses currently use them - in some cases they could be stops for >summer-only services. I suggest that we should include all bus stops >in the dataset regardless of use. We should removed stops that don't >physically exist if there is no sign of them on the ground. Customary >stops might need a visit to the friendly local bus operator who >probably has all the information in his head. Physically marked stops >can be checked by cruising the bus routes. > >> >> Beyond that the only bit of data I dislike from the original run is >> the >> unverified=yes tag. It would be better to change this to verified=no >> for >> future imports (and easy to swap in West Mids.) > >sounds good >> >> Otherwise my experience in Brum is generally good in that with the >> exception >> of location (which is 10m to 100m off at least 50% of the time) the >> NaPTAN >> data matches the data on the ground very well. >> >The accuracy will vary across the county and will reflect the care >taken by each authority. I would expect it to be better in most places >but might be proved wrong! > >Having a map that shows the bus stops would seem to be a good step to >getting it improved by doing a physical survey or asking bus drivers >to comment. If the data is hidden in the maps and not exposed it will >be harder to sort out. I vote for having the data introduced as fully >visisbly data but possibly we do it county by county. I am happy to be >an early recipient of data for Suffolk and I think Ed Loach is keen to >see the Essex data. Agreed, but the decision needs to come from the community on the ground, just as we have done with the West Midlands. Cheers Andy > > > >Regards, > > > >Peter > > >> I know Brian and others have documented a few oddities here: >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/NaPTAN_Error_Log >> >> >> Cheers >> >> Andy >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >>> Traveline would strongly advocate for their inclusion so that OSM >>> links seamlessly to their journey planners. >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> >>> >>> Peter >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 26 Jun 2009, at 16:21, Thomas Wood wrote: >>> >>>> 2009/6/24 Peter Miller <[email protected]>: >>>>> >>>>> On 24 Jun 2009, at 18:20, Thomas Wood wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> 2009/6/24 Peter Miller <[email protected]>: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Can I suggest that we treat this import and any final tagging >>>>>>> as a >>>>>>> separate >>>>>>> issue on separate timeline from the NaPTAN import just so long as >>>>>>> no >>>>>>> important information in the NaPTAN DB is lost in the process. >>>>>> >>>>>> Can you clarify what you meant by this? >>>>>> Is it essentially that we don't care about the new tagging schema >>>>>> and >>>>>> get on with the import? >>>>> >>>> >>>>> Yes. I would suggest that to avoid trying to agree a new tagging >>>>> arrangement >>>>> in a hurry prior to the import and keep the two projects separate. >>>>> Firstly >>>>> we import the rest of NaPTAN as agreed in the original discussion, >>>>> and then >>>>> secondly we agree a harmonised tagging arrangement of some sort and >>>>> convert >>>>> all the data to this new format (including the NaPTAN import). >>>>> >>>>> btw, did you mean this to be off-list? Feel free to copy the thread >>>>> to the >>>>> list if it was a mistake. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Peter >>>> >>>> Ok, then to get on with the import, we need to review the errors we >>>> made with the Birmingham trail, and to get their views on the data >>>> review process - was it a good idea to import things without the >>>> highway=bus_stop tag, to get people to add them themselves? >>>> >>>> I think the one other outstanding issue is how we should represent >>>> the >>>> CUS stop types, at present in the 'active' tagging mode, they'll >>>> appear as fully-fledged highway=bus_stop nodes, like every other bus >>>> stop type, but with the addition of naptan:BusStopType=CUS, as (a >>>> rather obscure) indicator to the fact they may not exist. >>>> >>>> And then finally, we need to think about how we roll this out, >>>> county >>>> at a time is the most obvious step, I think we order the import >>>> based >>>> on requests on the transit list, followed by requests on talk-gb, >>>> with >>>> a target date to import the rest by. >>>> >>>> And on the technical front, I'm going to have to make sure that the >>>> import tools I'm using are 0.6-capable. >>>> >>>> I'm copying this over to the west-mids list so we can get their >>>> responses. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Regards, >>>> Thomas Wood >>>> (Edgemaster) >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands >> _______________________________________________ Talk-transit mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
