Re: [Talk-GB] XAPI lagging behind by days?

[Christoph Boehme]

On 24/03/2010 08:57, Tom Chance wrote:
> That makes sense. So if a bus stop has one or more relations added, should
> it be counted as equivalent to a route_ref tag in the colour scheme, i.e.
> not marked as needing a route_ref tag?

Yes, that would be good. However, this would require a bit of work since
Novam is not aware of relations at all at the moment. If someone wants
to start working on this the source code is available on [1].

Best,
Christoph

[1] https://kofje.de/repos/naptan/novam/branches/xapi-backend/

> You could also check if there are relations matching up to route_ref entries
> for areas where they were put in.
>
> Tom
> 
> 
> On 24 March 2010 08:13, Shaun McDonald  wrote:
> 
>> The route ref is an interim data level until the relations are added. Think
>> of it as house numbers being initially added as points, and then full
>> building outlines being added at a later stage at which point the building
>> number gets transferred to the building outline.
>>
>> Shaun
>>
>> On 24 Mar 2010, at 07:58, Tom Chance wrote:
>>
>> 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"  wrote:
>>
>> Tom Chance  schrieb:
>>
>>> On 23 March 2010 13:20, Christoph Boehme  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-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] Viewranger now supports OSM and OCM

[Alexander Wright]

(No connection with the company other than I've bought a copy)

It doesn't seem to have been mentioned here, but Viewranger 
(www.viewranger.com) now support Open Street Map and Open Cycle Map in their 
software.

See press release:

http://www.viewranger.com/newsitem.php?nid=33

Alex.

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] XAPI lagging behind by days?

[Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists)]

The only reason I prefer a verified=yes rather than the tag deleted is that
at least it tells me the stop is verified. If the tag is deleted it might be
verified or might be that the tag was deleted.

Cheers

Andy

>-Original Message-
>From: talk-gb-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-gb-
>boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Christoph Boehme
>Sent: 23 March 2010 1:21 PM
>To: Tom Chance
>Cc: Public transport/transit/shared taxi related topics; talk-
>g...@openstreetmap.org
>Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] XAPI lagging behind by days?
>
>Well, I just updated the Birmingham scheme two days ago to accept
>naptan:verified=yes, because Andy asked for it.
>
>Perhaps it makes sense to reorganise the schemes to have only one basic
>scheme which displays verification status, CUS and notes/errors and a
>number of specialised schemes building on top of the basic one for
>information that is not available everywhere like route references,
>shelter information and asset references.
>
>Christoph
>
>On 23/03/2010 12:59, Tom Chance wrote:
>> Oh, well, I don't mind really. I've just assumed that the tag should be
>> deleted as the Birmingham scheme also shows them needing work. It is a
>bit
>> confusing having the three colour schemes when I'm aiming to fix the data
>up
>> to a canonical OSM standard.
>>
>> Tom
>>
>>
>> On 23 March 2010 12:16, Christoph Boehme  wrote:
>>
>>> Tom,
>>>
>>> If you wish I can change the Hull scheme to mark stops with
>>> naptan:verified=yes as completed as well.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Christoph
>>>
>>> On 23/03/2010 09:38, Tom Chance wrote:
 Hello there,

 I had a look at the NOVAM tool for bus stops to check my area:

>>> http://mappa-mercia.org/novam/?scheme=hull&zoom=15&lat=51.46602&lon=-
>0.07598&layers=BT

 I then updated a load of bus stops, most of which I just needed to
>delete
 the 'naptan:verified' tag from:
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/4205203

 But days later NOVAM still shows them as needing correcting, and if I
 download the area in XAPI lo-and-behold they seem unchanged:

>>> http://xapi.openstreetmap.org/api/0.6/node[highway=bus_stop][bbox=-
>0.08537,51.45112,-0.05885,51.4754]

 Isn't XAPI meant to only lag ten or so minutes behind the API?

 Tom




 ___
 Talk-GB mailing list
 Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Talk-GB mailing list
>>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>___
>Talk-GB mailing list
>Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>Version: 9.0.791 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2762 - Release Date: 03/23/10
>19:33:00


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] GB Chapter

[Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists)]

I'll bring this up at our monthly mappa-mercia social next week as our group
would also benefit from a chapter and it might be there is enough interest
within to getting one up and running.

It would be good to hear from the London and other close knit groups on
their views/support?

Cheers

Andy

>-Original Message-
>From: talk-gb-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-gb-
>boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of SteveC
>Sent: 23 March 2010 11:15 PM
>To: talk-gb OSM List (E-mail)
>Subject: [Talk-GB] GB Chapter
>
>All
>
>I've talked to a few people recently in the UK geo-scene about various
>partnerships and other bits and bobs that would make sense for OSM.
>
>Unfortunately they don't make a whole lot of sense to do anything official
>with OSMF. It would make a lot more sense if there was a GB/UK chapter of
>OSMF which could build out a lot of the UK specific relationships and
>partnerships.
>
>Of course, OSM started in the UK but that doesn't mean OSMF is all about
>the UK. Especially today, where only one board member actually lives there.
>
>Abroad, the US and ES chapters seem to be picking up speed and a UK
>chapter, if it makes sense, would help build out a ton of potential things
>that OSMF can't (perhaps shouldn't) do.
>
>Thoughts?
>
>Yours &c.
>
>Steve
>
>
>___
>Talk-GB mailing list
>Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>Version: 9.0.791 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2762 - Release Date: 03/23/10
>19:33:00


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] XAPI lagging behind by days?

[Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists)]

The route_ref tag is extremely useful in the west midlands because all
physical bus stops carry the full list of route numbers visiting the stop on
the sign plate, this makes data gathering on the ground very easy and
generally I don't set up the route relation until I've done all the stops in
an area as its quicker that way. I then just do a search in JOSM and add all
the stops (and ways between them) to make the new relations.

If we obtain route information from any other source then the route_ref on
the stop is useful as a check, some folks are noting that some route numbers
have been changing recently in south/east Birmingham for instance.

Cheers

Andy 

>-Original Message-
>From: talk-gb-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-gb-
>boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Tom Chance
>Sent: 24 March 2010 8:58 AM
>To: Shaun McDonald
>Cc: Public transport/transit/shared taxi related topics; talk-
>g...@openstreetmap.org
>Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] XAPI lagging behind by days?
>
>That makes sense. So if a bus stop has one or more relations added, should
>it be counted as equivalent to a route_ref tag in the colour scheme, i.e.
>not marked as needing a route_ref tag?
>
>You could also check if there are relations matching up to route_ref
>entries for areas where they were put in.
>
>Tom
>
>
>
>On 24 March 2010 08:13, Shaun McDonald  wrote:
>
>
>   The route ref is an interim data level until the relations are
added.
>Think of it as house numbers being initially added as points, and then full
>building outlines being added at a later stage at which point the building
>number gets transferred to the building outline.
>
>   Shaun
>
>   On 24 Mar 2010, at 07:58, Tom Chance wrote:
>
>
>   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"
> wrote:
>
>   Tom Chance  schrieb:
>
>
>   > On 23 March 2010 13:20, Christoph Boehme
> 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-GB mailing list
>   Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>   http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>http://tom.acrewoods.net   http://twitter.com/tom_chance
>
>
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>Version: 9.0.791 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2762 - Release Date: 03/23/10
>19:33:00
>



___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] XAPI lagging behind by days?

[Tom Chance]

That makes sense. So if a bus stop has one or more relations added, should
it be counted as equivalent to a route_ref tag in the colour scheme, i.e.
not marked as needing a route_ref tag?

You could also check if there are relations matching up to route_ref entries
for areas where they were put in.

Tom


On 24 March 2010 08:13, Shaun McDonald  wrote:

> The route ref is an interim data level until the relations are added. Think
> of it as house numbers being initially added as points, and then full
> building outlines being added at a later stage at which point the building
> number gets transferred to the building outline.
>
> Shaun
>
> On 24 Mar 2010, at 07:58, Tom Chance wrote:
>
> 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"  wrote:
>
> Tom Chance  schrieb:
>
> > On 23 March 2010 13:20, Christoph Boehme  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-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
>


-- 
http://tom.acrewoods.net   http://twitter.com/tom_chance
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] XAPI lagging behind by days?

[Shaun McDonald]

The route ref is an interim data level until the relations are added. Think of 
it as house numbers being initially added as points, and then full building 
outlines being added at a later stage at which point the building number gets 
transferred to the building outline.

Shaun

On 24 Mar 2010, at 07:58, Tom Chance wrote:

> 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"  wrote:
>> 
>> Tom Chance  schrieb:
>> > On 23 March 2010 13:20, Christoph Boehme  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-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] XAPI lagging behind by days?

[Tom Chance]

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"  wrote:

Tom Chance  schrieb:

> On 23 March 2010 13:20, Christoph Boehme  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-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb