Re: [Talk-GB] More NaPTAN Counties Uploaded
On Fri, 2009-11-13 at 11:33 +, Thomas Wood wrote: > Hi list, > Just to inform you that 6 more counties have been uploaded this morning, > Angus, East Yorkshire, Herefordshire, Highland, Leicestershire and > Norfolk. > The remaining 4 requested (and any others requested over the weekend) on > the wiki will be uploaded on Monday. > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/NaPTAN/Request_for_Import > > Regards, > Thomas Wood - NaPTAN Importer > The remaining 4 of South Lanarkshire, Surrey, West Sussex and Windsor & Maidenhead have all just been imported. Regards, Thomas ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] More NaPTAN Counties Uploaded
Hi list, Just to inform you that 6 more counties have been uploaded this morning, Angus, East Yorkshire, Herefordshire, Highland, Leicestershire and Norfolk. The remaining 4 requested (and any others requested over the weekend) on the wiki will be uploaded on Monday. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/NaPTAN/Request_for_Import Regards, Thomas Wood - NaPTAN Importer ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] More NaPTAN Counties Uploaded - Bristol and Cheshire East
On 15 Sep 2009, at 22:48, Thomas Wood wrote: > > ref/local_ref has been argued here in the past, I can't remember the > reason for settling on the latter, I personally prefer the former. ref should be a national reference whilst local_ref is a reference on a more local basis, in this case usually within hundreds of metres. The local references are repeated all over cities, hence why I believe that they are not a nationally unique reference, which is what I understand the ref tag to be. Shaun ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] More NaPTAN Counties Uploaded - Bristol and Cheshire East
2009/9/15 Robert Naylor : > On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 08:36:50 +0100, Thomas Wood > wrote: > >> Sorry for the delay in getting back, the end of last week was marred >> by not being able to get online. >> >> Anyway, I have now imported West Yorkshire (more on this in a bit), >> Torbay and Thurrock. >> > > > Thanks for importing West Yorkshire. > > Just had a go at merging a bus stop and just my luck picked a less straight > forward one. > > A bus stop, which in Naptan has a stop marked per side of road, however its > only physicaly marked at one side only. > > I've merged the actual stop with the naptan point on the same side of the > road, but I'm not sure what to do with the Naptan point on the other side. > > Possibly something like > physically_present=opposite > highway=bus_stop > > or just > physically_present=no > highway=bus_stop > > And then of course there is the BusStopType which will then contradict > physically_present if I set physically_present=opposite > > Quite a lot of bus stops round here also have ref set to what should > hopefully be in local_ref. (Possibly my fault that) ref/local_ref has been argued here in the past, I can't remember the reason for settling on the latter, I personally prefer the former. The BusStopType is only applied to stops that are CUStomary, usually meaning no flag is present, or referred to by the flag opposite. physically_present=opposite will not contradict naptan:BusStopType=CUS Whether or not to leave the highway=bus_stop tag is local preference for now. -- Regards, Thomas Wood (Edgemaster) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] More NaPTAN Counties Uploaded - Bristol and Cheshire East
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 08:36:50 +0100, Thomas Wood wrote: > Sorry for the delay in getting back, the end of last week was marred > by not being able to get online. > > Anyway, I have now imported West Yorkshire (more on this in a bit), > Torbay and Thurrock. > Thanks for importing West Yorkshire. Just had a go at merging a bus stop and just my luck picked a less straight forward one. A bus stop, which in Naptan has a stop marked per side of road, however its only physicaly marked at one side only. I've merged the actual stop with the naptan point on the same side of the road, but I'm not sure what to do with the Naptan point on the other side. Possibly something like physically_present=opposite highway=bus_stop or just physically_present=no highway=bus_stop And then of course there is the BusStopType which will then contradict physically_present if I set physically_present=opposite Quite a lot of bus stops round here also have ref set to what should hopefully be in local_ref. (Possibly my fault that) -- Robert ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] More NaPTAN Counties Uploaded - Bristol and Cheshire East
On 15 Sep 2009, at 08:36, Thomas Wood wrote: > Sorry for the delay in getting back, the end of last week was marred > by not being able to get online. > > Anyway, I have now imported West Yorkshire (more on this in a bit), > Torbay and Thurrock. > > W.Yorks caused me a lot of problems: > 1) naptan:Notes was populated, often with strings greater than 255 > characters long. I hadn't counted on such verbose descriptions, so had > to include a check for it. > 2) They seem to use * as a null field representation, rather than the > single space or -, which I was already filtering out. I didn't notice > this until the data was imported. > 3) The code I had to parse out the local_ref from the Indicator field > was broken, truncating the last two digits off all the W.Yrks > local_refs (which are a subset of the AtcoCode, incidentally) > > To solve issues 2 and 3, I had to fix the script and then do a messy > 'patch import', this is why all the W.Yrks data is showing as version > 2, rather than the standard version 1 for objects. > *** Those who are doing analysis of edits to the data should take note > of this. *** Thanks Thomas. I had a quick look at Wakefield and noticed a row of stops misaligned with the road (particularly Kirkgate) and wondered if NaPTAN or OSM was wrong. I created a KML file from OSM Mapper for the area to compare what OSM had with Google maps and photography which confirmed that the roads in OSM are incorrectly alligned. (of course this is not a data source for correction, only a way of cross-checking to see if there is a problem) [1] Panning round a little is pretty informative and shows areas where the GPS signal was not good and the road alignment is therefore siginificantly off, but also shows one place where OSM is more up-to- date than Google (around Marsh Way which has recently been diverted to avoid a new shopping centre) and of course OSM has footpaths and bridlepaths etc as well. I then created one for central Birmingham which is significantly better, but there are still some significant deviations.[2] [1] http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/685499/Wakefield_%28Highways...%29.kml [2] http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/685499/Birmingham_%28central%29_%28Highways...%29.kml Regards, Peter > > 2009/9/11 Mark Williams : >> Peter Miller wrote: >>> >>> On 10 Sep 2009, at 21:00, Mark Williams wrote: >> [] When I voted for Essex I had hoped that all of Essex might turn up, but as far as I can see it's excluded Thurrock, a little unitary authority in the S.W. corner - which is, naturally, the bit I wanted... >>> >>> To be clear, the import request log is by administrative county. >>> Thurrock unfortunately for you is only in the ceremonial county of >>> Essex, for administrative purposes it is a separately place. If >>> you add >>> your signature to Thurrock in the list then I am sure it will be >>> imported! >> >> Hmm. Done.. I wish I'd known earlier that it wasn't included though, >> because I'm going to have moved before it gets much attention. Oh >> well. >> >> I was a bit confused by relations poking into Thurrock which made it >> look part-done, so there has been some misplaced patience happening! >> >> Thanks. >> >> Mark >> >> >> ___ >> Talk-GB mailing list >> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb >> > > > > -- > Regards, > Thomas Wood > (Edgemaster) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] More NaPTAN Counties Uploaded - Bristol and Cheshire East
Sorry for the delay in getting back, the end of last week was marred by not being able to get online. Anyway, I have now imported West Yorkshire (more on this in a bit), Torbay and Thurrock. W.Yorks caused me a lot of problems: 1) naptan:Notes was populated, often with strings greater than 255 characters long. I hadn't counted on such verbose descriptions, so had to include a check for it. 2) They seem to use * as a null field representation, rather than the single space or -, which I was already filtering out. I didn't notice this until the data was imported. 3) The code I had to parse out the local_ref from the Indicator field was broken, truncating the last two digits off all the W.Yrks local_refs (which are a subset of the AtcoCode, incidentally) To solve issues 2 and 3, I had to fix the script and then do a messy 'patch import', this is why all the W.Yrks data is showing as version 2, rather than the standard version 1 for objects. *** Those who are doing analysis of edits to the data should take note of this. *** 2009/9/11 Mark Williams : > Peter Miller wrote: >> >> On 10 Sep 2009, at 21:00, Mark Williams wrote: > [] >>> When I voted for Essex I had hoped that all of Essex might turn up, >>> but as far as I can see it's excluded Thurrock, a little unitary >>> authority in the S.W. corner - which is, naturally, the bit I wanted... >>> >> >> To be clear, the import request log is by administrative county. >> Thurrock unfortunately for you is only in the ceremonial county of >> Essex, for administrative purposes it is a separately place. If you add >> your signature to Thurrock in the list then I am sure it will be imported! > > Hmm. Done.. I wish I'd known earlier that it wasn't included though, > because I'm going to have moved before it gets much attention. Oh well. > > I was a bit confused by relations poking into Thurrock which made it > look part-done, so there has been some misplaced patience happening! > > Thanks. > > Mark > > > ___ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > -- Regards, Thomas Wood (Edgemaster) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] More NaPTAN Counties Uploaded - Bristol and Cheshire East
Peter Miller wrote: > > On 10 Sep 2009, at 21:00, Mark Williams wrote: [] >> When I voted for Essex I had hoped that all of Essex might turn up, >> but as far as I can see it's excluded Thurrock, a little unitary >> authority in the S.W. corner - which is, naturally, the bit I wanted... >> > > To be clear, the import request log is by administrative county. > Thurrock unfortunately for you is only in the ceremonial county of > Essex, for administrative purposes it is a separately place. If you add > your signature to Thurrock in the list then I am sure it will be imported! Hmm. Done.. I wish I'd known earlier that it wasn't included though, because I'm going to have moved before it gets much attention. Oh well. I was a bit confused by relations poking into Thurrock which made it look part-done, so there has been some misplaced patience happening! Thanks. Mark ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] More NaPTAN Counties Uploaded - Bristol and Cheshire East
On 10 Sep 2009, at 21:00, Mark Williams wrote: Peter Miller wrote: On 7 Sep 2009, at 00:00, Frankie Roberto wrote: Thomas wrote: I'm following the Be Bold motto, and am now uploading the remaining NaPTAN counties that have been requested. I'll probably do two or three at a time, following the list alphabetically, possibly trying to avoid importing counties next to each other together. This is all looking good. But.. When I voted for Essex I had hoped that all of Essex might turn up, but as far as I can see it's excluded Thurrock, a little unitary authority in the S.W. corner - which is, naturally, the bit I wanted... To be clear, the import request log is by administrative county. Thurrock unfortunately for you is only in the ceremonial county of Essex, for administrative purposes it is a separately place. If you add your signature to Thurrock in the list then I am sure it will be imported! Hi Ho. We did get Basildon for the mapping party there though, which is great. Good stuff. Regards, Peter Miller Mark ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] More NaPTAN Counties Uploaded - Bristol and Cheshire East
Peter Miller wrote: > > On 7 Sep 2009, at 00:00, Frankie Roberto wrote: > >> Thomas wrote: >> >> I'm following the Be Bold motto, and am now uploading the remaining >> NaPTAN counties that have been requested. >> I'll probably do two or three at a time, following the list >> alphabetically, possibly trying to avoid importing counties next to >> each other together. This is all looking good. But.. When I voted for Essex I had hoped that all of Essex might turn up, but as far as I can see it's excluded Thurrock, a little unitary authority in the S.W. corner - which is, naturally, the bit I wanted... Hi Ho. We did get Basildon for the mapping party there though, which is great. Mark ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] More NaPTAN Counties Uploaded - Bristol and Cheshire East
On 7 Sep 2009, at 00:00, Frankie Roberto wrote: Thomas wrote: I'm following the Be Bold motto, and am now uploading the remaining NaPTAN counties that have been requested. I'll probably do two or three at a time, following the list alphabetically, possibly trying to avoid importing counties next to each other together. Tonight I've uploaded Bristol and Cheshire East. Nice! Can I request that the data for Manchester is added? I can't promise to check it all, but I'd do my bit (and help to spread the word (http://manchesterbus.typepad.com/ might be interested). And since no one has objected can we have Warwickshire in advance of the AGI conference as per my post on Friday. I have added the request to the wiki page. Thanks, Peter Frankie -- Frankie Roberto Experience Designer, Rattle 0114 2706977 http://www.rattlecentral.com ___ 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] More NaPTAN Counties Uploaded - Bristol and Cheshire East
Thomas wrote: I'm following the Be Bold motto, and am now uploading the remaining > NaPTAN counties that have been requested. > I'll probably do two or three at a time, following the list > alphabetically, possibly trying to avoid importing counties next to > each other together. > > Tonight I've uploaded Bristol and Cheshire East. > Nice! Can I request that the data for Manchester is added? I can't promise to check it all, but I'd do my bit (and help to spread the word ( http://manchesterbus.typepad.com/ might be interested). Frankie -- Frankie Roberto Experience Designer, Rattle 0114 2706977 http://www.rattlecentral.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] More NaPTAN Counties Uploaded - Bristol and Cheshire East
2009/9/6 Richard Bullock : > Hello Thomas, > > I am the right one for Cheshire East! > > I was out today and I thought I'd take a photo of one bus stop to see how > the reference numbers on the bus stop compare with the import data. This info will be useful to put on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/NaPTAN/Local_schemes > The bus stop had MA0538 on the sign. > > I went to NaPTAN and this one said 0600MA0539 > > the one with MA0538 was the one on the opposite side of the road. > > Now my question is; is this likely to be; > > 1. a council error - e.g. the contractors have mixed up the signs when > putting them up > 2. a NaPTAN error - e.g. the numbers have been entered into the database the > wrong way round for some reason > 3. Something else? Who knows is the simple answer. > I'm pretty sure it can't be that the positional errors have led to both > being shown on the wrong side of the road as the naptan:bearing tags look > right. > > Are we reporting errors we find to councils/DfT etc.? > > Richard > People on the list have access to the official NaPTAN error report tool, so if required the error report can be pushed back upstream to the council to review. I'm not sure on our policy to report back errors at the moment. (In fact I'm not sure if the appropriate people from the DfT are reading talk-gb either, so I'll copy this to talk-transit too... which I didn't want to clutter further) -- Regards, Thomas Wood (Edgemaster) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] More NaPTAN Counties Uploaded - Bristol and Cheshire East
I'm following the Be Bold motto, and am now uploading the remaining NaPTAN counties that have been requested. I'll probably do two or three at a time, following the list alphabetically, possibly trying to avoid importing counties next to each other together. Tonight I've uploaded Bristol and Cheshire East. To those CC'd into this mail, a) I hope I've picked the right people, b) Get merging! details of the process are here - http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/NaPTAN/Surveying_and_Merging_NaPTAN_and_OSM_data (I'm posting these only on talk-gb now, since the talk-transit list should return to focusing on transit data, rather than the naptan import) -- Regards, Thomas Wood (Edgemaster) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
