That all sounds good, though if we add stops to route relations do they really need route_ref?
Tom On Mar 23, 2010 10:26 PM, "Christoph Böhme" <[email protected]> wrote: Tom Chance <[email protected]> schrieb: > On 23 March 2010 13:20, Christoph Boehme <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Well, I just updated t... Yes, exactly. My current plan is to have four types of stops in the basic scheme: 1. Non-NaPTAN stops: Stops without naptan:*-tags. Basically plain old OSM bus stops. 2. Unverified NaPTAN stops: Stops from the NaPTAN import which have a naptan:verified=no tag or which are missing the highway=bus_stop tag. 3. Verified NaPTAN stops: Stops tagged as hightway=bus_stop and with either no naptan:verified tag or a naptan:verified=yes tag. 4. CUS-stops: Stops with naptan:BusStopType=CUS because they are not marked on the ground and cannot be verified. Extended schemes would be: 1. Stops with notes: Highlight stops with a note or naptan:error tag 2. Route information: Highlight stops which are missing the route_ref tag. 3. Shelter and asset refs: Highlight bus stops which have shelter=yes and no asset_ref or which have no shelter tag at all (this might be quite Birmingham specific). 4. Anything else? I suggest to keep the old schemes but rename them to the name of the public transport network they apply to (e.g. "Transport West Midlands" for Birmingham), since they are based on the amount of information that is available on the signs used by a particular network. Best, Christoph > Best, > Tom > > -- > http://tom.acrewoods.net http://twitter.com/tom_chance
_______________________________________________ Talk-transit mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
