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
