Let the relevant community decide - in the West Mids we had a lot of exisiting bus stops so it made sense to have them imported as silent. It means a lot of work for us verifying and turning them on, but at least in JOSM we can differentiate between surveyed and imported bus stops - and it gets us to resurvey lots of areas which results in a much more accurate map. Agree with Andy that "Verified=No" is more intuitive than "Unverified=Yes". On CUS stops I still think, as a mapper, these should not be tagged as no marker exists on the ground, but I can see why the Public Transport people want to see them. Perhaps we should just tag them highway=bus_stop_customary? Could future public sector apps still parse these as bus_stop, thereby satisfying public transport aims, whilst not rendering to satisfy mapping aims?
I'm having some issues with HAR - presumably this is on hold until a later date. Regards Brian 2009/6/29 Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) <ajrli...@googlemail.com> > Peter Miller wrote: > >Sent: 26 June 2009 6:24 PM > >To: Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) > >Cc: 'Thomas Wood'; talk-gb-westmidla...@openstreetmap.org; talk- > >tran...@openstreetmap.org > >Subject: Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] [Talk-transit] NaPTAN and the new > >PTtagging schema > > > > > >On 26 Jun 2009, at 17:51, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote: > > > >> Peter Miller wrote: > >>> Sent: 26 June 2009 4:41 PM > >>> To: Thomas Wood > >>> Cc: talk-gb-westmidla...@openstreetmap.org; talk- > >tran...@openstreetmap.org > >>> Subject: Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] [Talk-transit] NaPTAN and the new > >>> PTtagging schema > >>> > >>> > >>> Your suggestions below make a lot of sense. I would however very much > >>> encourage you to include customary stops because they do indeed > >>> 'exist' even though there is no physical pole. Consider a road that > >>> doesn't have a name plate but when you people who live on the street > >>> what it is called they tell you. Does the street have a name or does > >>> it not - I suggest we would agree that it does? If a tree falls in a > >>> wood and there is no one to hear it did it make a sound etc. > >>> Customary > >>> stops can be confirmed by looking for physical marks of vehicles > >>> stopping or people standing around on the grass, from information at > >>> the stop opposite or from asking bus drivers. I would suggest that > >>> for > >>> now we believe NaPTAN. > >> > >> These are easy to add in a final cleanup anyway, just by usage of > >> the route. > >> The problem with the NaPTan data is that there are loads of stops > >> that are > >> probably just not used at all, hence we leave them turned off > >> (silent data). > >> I agree that we could and probably should import customary stops but > >> I don't > >> think we should assume they are actual in-use stops and hence should > >> leave > >> them silent in the database until someone confirms and adds > >> highway=bus_stop > >> > >> For other areas of the country I think its fine (with the exception > >> of CUS > >> stops) to go ahead straight away and add the highway=bus_stop where > >> there > >> are few existing mapped stops. Ideally a post to the local uses in > >> the area > >> would confirm either way what they would like to do. > > > >You seem to be putting out different messages in the two above > >paragraphs. Are you saying you support the import of CUS stops or not. > >Also are you suggesting that bus stops are set as 'real' (ie active) > >stops. > > > > Yes, lets import them but not with the highway=bus_stop on them. Then > OSMers > can switch them on if they are in use or leave/delete them as they see fit. > > >Possibly Roger will have some views on how many unused stops there are > >likely to be in the dataset. Looking at the Oct08 dataset there were > >365,000 bus stops and 42,020 of them were unused at the time however > >this doesn't necessarily mean that they don't exist, only that no > >buses currently use them - in some cases they could be stops for > >summer-only services. I suggest that we should include all bus stops > >in the dataset regardless of use. We should removed stops that don't > >physically exist if there is no sign of them on the ground. Customary > >stops might need a visit to the friendly local bus operator who > >probably has all the information in his head. Physically marked stops > >can be checked by cruising the bus routes. > > > >> > >> Beyond that the only bit of data I dislike from the original run is > >> the > >> unverified=yes tag. It would be better to change this to verified=no > >> for > >> future imports (and easy to swap in West Mids.) > > > >sounds good > >> > >> Otherwise my experience in Brum is generally good in that with the > >> exception > >> of location (which is 10m to 100m off at least 50% of the time) the > >> NaPTAN > >> data matches the data on the ground very well. > >> > >The accuracy will vary across the county and will reflect the care > >taken by each authority. I would expect it to be better in most places > >but might be proved wrong! > > > >Having a map that shows the bus stops would seem to be a good step to > >getting it improved by doing a physical survey or asking bus drivers > >to comment. If the data is hidden in the maps and not exposed it will > >be harder to sort out. I vote for having the data introduced as fully > >visisbly data but possibly we do it county by county. I am happy to be > >an early recipient of data for Suffolk and I think Ed Loach is keen to > >see the Essex data. > > Agreed, but the decision needs to come from the community on the ground, > just as we have done with the West Midlands. > > Cheers > > Andy > > > > > > > >Regards, > > > > > > > >Peter > > > > > >> I know Brian and others have documented a few oddities here: > >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/NaPTAN_Error_Log > >> > >> > >> Cheers > >> > >> Andy > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>> > >>> Traveline would strongly advocate for their inclusion so that OSM > >>> links seamlessly to their journey planners. > >>> > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Peter > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On 26 Jun 2009, at 16:21, Thomas Wood wrote: > >>> > >>>> 2009/6/24 Peter Miller <peter.mil...@itoworld.com>: > >>>>> > >>>>> On 24 Jun 2009, at 18:20, Thomas Wood wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> 2009/6/24 Peter Miller <peter.mil...@itoworld.com>: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Can I suggest that we treat this import and any final tagging > >>>>>>> as a > >>>>>>> separate > >>>>>>> issue on separate timeline from the NaPTAN import just so long as > >>>>>>> no > >>>>>>> important information in the NaPTAN DB is lost in the process. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Can you clarify what you meant by this? > >>>>>> Is it essentially that we don't care about the new tagging schema > >>>>>> and > >>>>>> get on with the import? > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>>> Yes. I would suggest that to avoid trying to agree a new tagging > >>>>> arrangement > >>>>> in a hurry prior to the import and keep the two projects separate. > >>>>> Firstly > >>>>> we import the rest of NaPTAN as agreed in the original discussion, > >>>>> and then > >>>>> secondly we agree a harmonised tagging arrangement of some sort and > >>>>> convert > >>>>> all the data to this new format (including the NaPTAN import). > >>>>> > >>>>> btw, did you mean this to be off-list? Feel free to copy the thread > >>>>> to the > >>>>> list if it was a mistake. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Regards, > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Peter > >>>> > >>>> Ok, then to get on with the import, we need to review the errors we > >>>> made with the Birmingham trail, and to get their views on the data > >>>> review process - was it a good idea to import things without the > >>>> highway=bus_stop tag, to get people to add them themselves? > >>>> > >>>> I think the one other outstanding issue is how we should represent > >>>> the > >>>> CUS stop types, at present in the 'active' tagging mode, they'll > >>>> appear as fully-fledged highway=bus_stop nodes, like every other bus > >>>> stop type, but with the addition of naptan:BusStopType=CUS, as (a > >>>> rather obscure) indicator to the fact they may not exist. > >>>> > >>>> And then finally, we need to think about how we roll this out, > >>>> county > >>>> at a time is the most obvious step, I think we order the import > >>>> based > >>>> on requests on the transit list, followed by requests on talk-gb, > >>>> with > >>>> a target date to import the rest by. > >>>> > >>>> And on the technical front, I'm going to have to make sure that the > >>>> import tools I'm using are 0.6-capable. > >>>> > >>>> I'm copying this over to the west-mids list so we can get their > >>>> responses. > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Regards, > >>>> Thomas Wood > >>>> (Edgemaster) > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list > >>> talk-gb-westmidla...@openstreetmap.org > >>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list > talk-gb-westmidla...@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands >
_______________________________________________ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
