Useful feedback - Thanks.
In the hope I understand you correctly, see if the following is a useful starting point. Working from the list you provided, anything following a “=” is my current interpretation &/or suggestion:- seamark:type;0001564 recommended_track = If there is one within (say 100 metres), pass close to the seamark. seamark:type;0000522 fairway = If there is one within (say 100 metres), pass close the seamark. waterway;0000016046 river = Could be an acceptable route. waterway;0000009496 canal = Could be an acceptable route. waterway;0000007876 riverbank = Navigate along the channel which exists between the two banks waterway;0000002202 weir = DO NOT PASS ACROSS THIS. Find a nearby alternative. waterway;0000001364 dam = DO NOT PASS ACROSS THIS. Find a nearby alternative. waterway;0000000386 lock = is almost certainly the usual route if the nearby alternative is Weir or Dam. waterway;0000000321 tidal_flat_slough = Unlikely to be a good route (unless tidal data, and vessel draft are known) waterway;0000000179 wadi = Unlikely to be a good route. waterway;0000000126 dock = Could be a permissible destination waterway;0000000113 fish_pass = DO NOT PASS ACROSS THIS. Find a nearby alternative. waterway;0000000086 boatyard = Could be a permissible destination waterway;0000000071 fairway = If there is one nearby (say within 100 metres), it is likely to be the optimum route, use it. (See Seamark, fairway above) waterway;0000000059 lock_gate = If there is one nearby (say within 100 metres), it is likely to be the optimum route, use it. boat;0000019888 no = Unlikely to be a good route. boat;0000002718 yes = Could be a good route boat;0000000232 private = Unlikely to be a good route. boat;0000000064 permissive = Could be a good route boat;0000000045 designated = Could be a good route motorboat;0000001077 yes = Could be a good route motorboat;0000000808 no = Unlikely to be a good route. motorboat;0000000025 private privat = Unlikely to be a good route. route;0000000194 canoe = Could be a good route (though maybe only for a canoe?) --- OSM node context ---- waterway;0000004698 weir = DO NOT PASS ACROSS THIS. Find a nearby alternative. (See waterway, weir above) waterway;0000001647 lock_gate waterway;0000000425 waterfall = DO NOT PASS ACROSS THIS. Find a nearby alternative. waterway;0000000337 take_right_side = ignore? waterway;0000000332 take_left_side = ignore? waterway;0000000219 milestone = ignore? waterway;0000000187 depth = This could be a very useful user-adjustable filter if the data exists on the “map/chart”. waterway;0000000170 lock = If there is one nearby (say within 100 metres), use it. (See waterway, lock above) ford;0000037927 yes = DO NOT PASS ACROSS THIS. Find a nearby alternative. ford;0000000310 stepping_stones = DO NOT PASS ACROSS THIS. Find a nearby alternative. All the above comments assume use by conventional displacement “boat/ship/yacht”. Canoe-users would probably settle for more flexibility! Enough for now? Paul W On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 12:50:07 PM UTC+1, Poutnik wrote: > > The river profile is very simplistic. Waterways are routeble, if tagged > as canal or river or lock_gate. Other waterway values are forbidden. > > Profiles can evaluate only such tag and tag values that are mentioned in > text datafile http://brouter.de/brouter/profiles2/lookups.dat > > All water related tags and values I have found in lookups.dat are below. > If you provide someinside, I can suggest improvement. > > But there is a big warning - I have high suspicion that OSM tag based > info related to waterways may be very unsufficient for water traffic, > compared to various water sport guides and specialized maps. > > ---OSM ways context------ > > seamark:type;0001564 recommended_track > seamark:type;0000522 fairway > > waterway;0000016046 river > waterway;0000009496 canal > waterway;0000007876 riverbank > waterway;0000002202 weir > waterway;0000001364 dam > waterway;0000000386 lock > waterway;0000000321 tidal_flat_slough > waterway;0000000179 wadi > waterway;0000000126 dock > waterway;0000000113 fish_pass > waterway;0000000086 boatyard > waterway;0000000071 fairway > waterway;0000000059 lock_gate > > boat;0000019888 no > boat;0000002718 yes > boat;0000000232 private > boat;0000000064 permissive > boat;0000000045 designated > > motorboat;0000001077 yes > motorboat;0000000808 no > motorboat;0000000025 private privat > > route;0000000194 canoe > > --- OSM node context ---- > > waterway;0000004698 weir > waterway;0000001647 lock_gate > waterway;0000000425 waterfall > waterway;0000000337 take_right_side > waterway;0000000332 take_left_side > waterway;0000000219 milestone > waterway;0000000187 depth > waterway;0000000170 lock > > ford;0000037927 yes > ford;0000000310 stepping_stones > > > > > On 08/31/2016 01:02 PM, 'P Wat' via Osmand wrote: > > Thanks for your lightning-fast reply! - Content understood. > > Analysing and improving the profile would be beyond my "retired IT > > person's" experience. > > Do you know who wrote the "River" profile - Perhaps they would be keen > > to improve it? > > > > Does anyone else out there feel like examining this? > > > > Cheers > > PaulW > > ================= > > On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 11:40:58 AM UTC+1, Poutnik wrote: > > > > I cannot say much more. AFAIK it is rather experimental profile > > and it's setting is simple, probably what is a water object is > > routeable. Finer details are not addressed. > > > > You can analyze the profile content and aventually improve it by > > additional logic based on water related osm tagging. > > > > 31. srpna 2016 12:36:01 CEST, 'P Wat' via Osmand > > <[email protected]> napsal: > > > > Thank you Poutnik for your input. > > After some false starts then trial and error, "River" mode now > > functioning OK, but .... > > Some of the routes presented by Brouter-River-mode/Osmand are > > un-navigable. > > > > For example, checking stretches of the River Thames known to > me:- > > (Pic1) This route is shown going over the weir rather than > > through the lock. 51.559888, -0.873266. > > (Pic2) Shows a navigable route via a lock, not over the weir. > > 51.567255, -0.76882. > > (Pic3) This absurd route is via minor streams and ditches. > > Should go south from 51.432725, -0.515320, not north. > > (Pic4) = Road map of Pic3. > > Several similar instances already found elsewhere. > > > > These anomalies would make route-planning in "foreign" waters, > > seriously flawed! > > Is this caused by the "River" algorithm? > > Regards > > Paul W > > > > > > -- > > Sent from my phone via Android email client K-9. > > Please, forgive my brevity. > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > Groups "Osmand" group. > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send > > an email to [email protected] <javascript:> > > <mailto:[email protected] <javascript:>>. > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Osmand" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
