Re: [Talk-GB] XAPI lagging behind by days?
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 christ...@b3e.net wrote: Tom Chance t...@acrewoods.net schrieb: On 23 March 2010 13:20, Christoph Boehme christ...@b3e.net 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
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 sh...@shaunmcdonald.me.uk 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 christ...@b3e.net wrote: Tom Chance t...@acrewoods.net schrieb: On 23 March 2010 13:20, Christoph Boehme christ...@b3e.net 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?
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 sh...@shaunmcdonald.me.uk 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 christ...@b3e.net wrote: Tom Chance t...@acrewoods.net schrieb: On 23 March 2010 13:20, Christoph Boehme christ...@b3e.net 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://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?
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 christ...@b3e.net 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=hullzoom=15lat=51.46602lon=- 0.07598layers=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] XAPI lagging behind by days?
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 sh...@shaunmcdonald.me.uk 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 christ...@b3e.net wrote: Tom Chance t...@acrewoods.net schrieb: On 23 March 2010 13:20, Christoph Boehme christ...@b3e.net 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] XAPI lagging behind by days?
Hello there, I had a look at the NOVAM tool for bus stops to check my area: http://mappa-mercia.org/novam/?scheme=hullzoom=15lat=51.46602lon=-0.07598layers=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 -- 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?
Righto, thanks! Glad to hear I didn't do anything mysteriously wrong. Tom On 23 March 2010 11:49, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: Tom That instance of XAPI is lagging a bit due to recent heavy load. Its currently at 2010-03-22T15:52:02Z Your changeset is about three hours after that time so it should come through later today. 80n On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 9:38 AM, Tom Chance t...@acrewoods.net wrote: Hello there, I had a look at the NOVAM tool for bus stops to check my area: http://mappa-mercia.org/novam/?scheme=hullzoom=15lat=51.46602lon=-0.07598layers=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]http://xapi.openstreetmap.org/api/0.6/node%5Bhighway=bus_stop%5D%5Bbbox=-0.08537,51.45112,-0.05885,51.4754%5D Isn't XAPI meant to only lag ten or so minutes behind the API? 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?
I hope the load is not due to Novam using the server now. Novam is displaying the value of xapi:planetDate below the map key to give an indication of the age of the data. Perhaps the attribute could be amended with a full timestamp of the last update? Cheers Christoph On 23/03/2010 11:49, 80n wrote: Tom That instance of XAPI is lagging a bit due to recent heavy load. Its currently at 2010-03-22T15:52:02Z Your changeset is about three hours after that time so it should come through later today. 80n On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 9:38 AM, Tom Chance t...@acrewoods.net wrote: Hello there, I had a look at the NOVAM tool for bus stops to check my area: http://mappa-mercia.org/novam/?scheme=hullzoom=15lat=51.46602lon=-0.07598layers=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]http://xapi.openstreetmap.org/api/0.6/node%5Bhighway=bus_stop%5D%5Bbbox=-0.08537,51.45112,-0.05885,51.4754%5D Isn't XAPI meant to only lag ten or so minutes behind the API? 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 mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] XAPI lagging behind by days?
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=hullzoom=15lat=51.46602lon=-0.07598layers=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
Re: [Talk-GB] XAPI lagging behind by days?
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 christ...@b3e.net 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=hullzoom=15lat=51.46602lon=-0.07598layers=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 -- 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?
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 christ...@b3e.net 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=hullzoom=15lat=51.46602lon=-0.07598layers=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
Re: [Talk-GB] XAPI lagging behind by days?
On 23 March 2010 13:20, Christoph Boehme christ...@b3e.net wrote: 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. That sounds sensible. The basic scheme would presumably be enough for generalist mappers like me to be sure we're tidying NAPTAN up, without needing all the transport geek data I've never heard of? 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
Re: [Talk-GB] XAPI lagging behind by days?
Tom Chance t...@acrewoods.net schrieb: On 23 March 2010 13:20, Christoph Boehme christ...@b3e.net wrote: 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. That sounds sensible. The basic scheme would presumably be enough for generalist mappers like me to be sure we're tidying NAPTAN up, without needing all the transport geek data I've never heard of? 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
Re: [Talk-GB] XAPI lagging behind by days?
What's happening with the imports at the moment, are they progressing? North Yorkshire would be useful for me, well York and the area north as far as Thirsk anyway (~ 25 miles). Regards, Steve - Original Message - From: Christoph Böhme christ...@b3e.net To: Tom Chance t...@acrewoods.net Cc: Public transport/transit/shared taxi related topics talk-tran...@openstreetmap.org, talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] XAPI lagging behind by days? Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 22:26:42 + Tom Chance t...@acrewoods.net schrieb: On 23 March 2010 13:20, Christoph Boehme christ...@b3e.net wrote: 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. That sounds sensible. The basic scheme would presumably be enough for generalist mappers like me to be sure we're tidying NAPTAN up, without needing all the transport geek data I've never heard of? 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 -- ___ Surf the Web in a faster, safer and easier way: Download Opera 9 at http://www.opera.com Powered by Outblaze ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
