On 03.04.2014 10:58, Gerd Petermann wrote:
Hi Felix,
the via_ways branch tries to implement the information that is stored
in restriction relations:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:restriction
The Garmin format also has a so called "route restriction". It allows
to say
something like "if you come from node n1 travaling on arc a1 to point
n2, you are
not allowed to travel on to point n3 via arc a2.
The so called 4 node restriction is similar : if you come from n1 on
a1 via n2 and n3 on arc a2 you
are not allowed to continue to n4 on arc a3.
So, it has nothing to do with invisible ways.
What you are asking for is an algo similar to that for the
--adjust-turn-headings option.
I don't think that we really need invisible ways for that, it should
be enough to
manipulate the angle between the roads which is stored in the img file.
My understanding of the Garmin algo is that it doesn't like sharp angles,
so I am pretty sure that the angle has an effect on routing.
I'll do a few experiments with that.
Gerd
Ah okay. Now I got it.
Well for car navigation we don't need invisible ways. I'm pretty sure
also playing with angles won't really help much except in some special
cases. The street layout in general is good enough - as there are
usually via ways for cars to cut down sharp angles in real life anyhow.
For cycling this is not the case. Actually real invisible via/junction
was wouldn't be needed everywhere. Only on/off/between those lines that
we define as "cycleworthy". The higher the "road-speed" the more it's
needed. Also on many junction 2 via ways would be enough
as
/
____/___
/
/
here for example only in the right top corner and left lower corner the
angle matters while the angles are fine on the other to combinations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2014 10:42:57 +0200
From: extremecar...@gmail.com
To: mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk
Subject: Re: [mkgmap-dev] r3165 in via_ways branch
Hi Gerd,
I haven't really understood what the via ways branch is doing...
Could you explain it again?
Is it only about restrictions?
What could really improve the maps for me would be short invisible
short via ways on all intersections in order to reduce the turn angle...
So instead of
|
|
-----|------
|
|
make every intersection (on those places where the angle is over 60°)
look like
|
/ | \
-----|------
\ | /
|
Basically building short invisible via ways (if invisible routing
lines are not what this is about, then just give a style/command
option possiblity to define the type and then set it invisible in the
typfile) for routing (basically the same as highway junctions are in
reality, just smaller but serving the purpose of having no sharp turn
angle).
I'm pretty sure this would improve routing a lot for my maps, but this
is only an assumption as I cannot build large maps to try it out...
(the via ways should'nt be straight as in the above example but of
course round to minimize the angle. Length of 10m is long enough - so
make em consist of 3-4 points).
On 03.04.2014 09:28, Gerd Petermann wrote:
Hi all,
I think r3165 is ready for a deeper test.
Changes compared to trunk:
- handling of RouteRestrictions was mostly rewritten to make sure
that mkgmap doesn't
write wrong restrictions to the img file (this was possible when
different roads connected the same points
with direct arcs)
- added support for restrictions with one via way (see below)
- added support for tag type=restriction:* , e.g.
type=restriction:motorcar
- added support for tag restrection:*=<turn> , e.g.
restriction:motorcar=only_left_turn
- added support for no_entry and no_exit restrictions
- improved log messages for invalid or possibly obsolete
restriction relations
Reg. via ways:
According to NodCheck in the display tool the data written by
mkgmap r3165 is correct,
but I found no effect on routing :-(
Up to now mkgmap adds a 4 node restriction to both end points of
the via way.
Maybe there is a bit in a header which has to be (un)set, but I
can't find any.
Multiple via ways are not yet supported, but partly verified to be
correct.
Maybe I'll look at that when we see an effect on routing for a
single via way.
@Steve: Do you see any effect of them in your maps?
If yes, what might be wrong with the data written by mkgmap?
Gerd
_______________________________________________
mkgmap-dev mailing list
mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk <mailto:mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk>
http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
--
keep on biking and discovering new trails
Felix
openmtbmap.org &www.velomap.org <http://www.velomap.org>
_______________________________________________ mkgmap-dev mailing
list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk
http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
_______________________________________________
mkgmap-dev mailing list
mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk
http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
--
keep on biking and discovering new trails
Felix
openmtbmap.org & www.velomap.org
_______________________________________________
mkgmap-dev mailing list
mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk
http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
