Re: [OSM-talk] turn restriction checker
I have added a check on whether the 'via' is the first/last node in the from
and to
ways
On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 8:12 AM, Nic Roets <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Would be great if it could also check this:
> >
> > * a way may not be in any "from" or "to" role if it goes *through* the
> > junction (because in that case the information would be incomplete - you
> > would need to know which part of the way is meant!).
>
> Just to clarify : For example A ends in a T junction where it meets B.
> 'to' is B and goes through so it may be unclear if the restriction
> applies to a left turn or a right turn into B. (Traveling forward /
> backwards in B).
Hmm, I've been slow - I hadn't full appreciated the scope of the problem ;-(
Splitting every way that is part of a turn restriction is going to lead
quite
a few more ways.
Although I'm not sure this is a restriction problem, similar things happen
with
classification changes or bike routes etc
>
>
> Gosmore currently requires the 'restriction' tag because it uses it to
> distinguish between the two. (And it ignores anything with "half",
> "left_right" and "right_left") Specifically it measures the angles
> between the segments and considers turns less than 45 degrees to be
> straight ons and turns more than 135 degrees to be u turns. So there
> have been at least one case in Australia were it was mapped as
> no_right_turn while gosmore considered it a u turn. Of the 3 solutions
> ("no_u_turn", "only_straight_on" and adding a node to give the
> junction a T shape), the mapper chose the latter.
Ahh, I wonder if this is what is causing some of the weirdness I am seeing
with route debugging. Can you send me a permalink to the case in Australia
>
>
> I can't see that I will have time to implement anything else before
> 2009. So I recommend mappers to take the 30 seconds and add the
> restriction tag and perhaps an extra node. (Just like I recommend
> always add bicycle=yes/no to trunk roads).
>
> If both roads goes through, Relation:restriction simply does not have
> enough info. (Relation:xrestriction will have enough info, but is not
> supported or used). So then you have to split at least one of the
> ways. I should just point out that the newbies here in Pretoria have
> blindly recombined ways. In the first case the one way had layer=1 and
> the other didn't have layer set, so the recombine did not result in a
> conflict resolution dialog. This may well happen in cases where ways
> were split to make relation:restriction unambiguous.
>
> O.T. : In the other case(s) the newbie set the layer and name of the
> combined way to "1; 2" and "Old Pretoria Road; Old Pretoria Road"
> respectively.
>
> > Nic has said that he uses the "restriction=..." tag to clarify these. I
> > don't like that idea but if it is used widely then my above rule would
> > have to be lifted for relations with a "restriction..." defined.
>
> There are only 500 odd restrictions. So editing them all should not
> take more than a few hours.
>
> P.S. : I have a very simple proposal for encoding restrictions that
> never requires splitting ways, and unlike xrestriction it will keep on
> working if the someone adds an extra node in the final segment.The
> only drawback is that users will find it difficult. So the best time
> to adopt it will be when one of the editors gets a restriction editor
> function.
>
> Regards,
> Nic
>
> >
> > Bye
> > Frederik
> >
> > --
> > Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
> >
> > ___
> > talk mailing list
> > talk@openstreetmap.org
> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
> >
>
cheers
--
Franc
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] turn restriction checker
> Would be great if it could also check this:
>
> * a way may not be in any "from" or "to" role if it goes *through* the
> junction (because in that case the information would be incomplete - you
> would need to know which part of the way is meant!).
Just to clarify : For example A ends in a T junction where it meets B.
'to' is B and goes through so it may be unclear if the restriction
applies to a left turn or a right turn into B. (Traveling forward /
backwards in B).
Gosmore currently requires the 'restriction' tag because it uses it to
distinguish between the two. (And it ignores anything with "half",
"left_right" and "right_left") Specifically it measures the angles
between the segments and considers turns less than 45 degrees to be
straight ons and turns more than 135 degrees to be u turns. So there
have been at least one case in Australia were it was mapped as
no_right_turn while gosmore considered it a u turn. Of the 3 solutions
("no_u_turn", "only_straight_on" and adding a node to give the
junction a T shape), the mapper chose the latter.
I can't see that I will have time to implement anything else before
2009. So I recommend mappers to take the 30 seconds and add the
restriction tag and perhaps an extra node. (Just like I recommend
always add bicycle=yes/no to trunk roads).
If both roads goes through, Relation:restriction simply does not have
enough info. (Relation:xrestriction will have enough info, but is not
supported or used). So then you have to split at least one of the
ways. I should just point out that the newbies here in Pretoria have
blindly recombined ways. In the first case the one way had layer=1 and
the other didn't have layer set, so the recombine did not result in a
conflict resolution dialog. This may well happen in cases where ways
were split to make relation:restriction unambiguous.
O.T. : In the other case(s) the newbie set the layer and name of the
combined way to "1; 2" and "Old Pretoria Road; Old Pretoria Road"
respectively.
> Nic has said that he uses the "restriction=..." tag to clarify these. I
> don't like that idea but if it is used widely then my above rule would
> have to be lifted for relations with a "restriction..." defined.
There are only 500 odd restrictions. So editing them all should not
take more than a few hours.
P.S. : I have a very simple proposal for encoding restrictions that
never requires splitting ways, and unlike xrestriction it will keep on
working if the someone adds an extra node in the final segment.The
only drawback is that users will find it difficult. So the best time
to adopt it will be when one of the editors gets a restriction editor
function.
Regards,
Nic
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>
> --
> Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] turn restriction checker
Hi, Franc Carter wrote: > I hacked up a quick perl script to look for common problems in turn > restrictions > (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Routing:_turn_restrictions) > that I am seeing. > > It checks for:- > * missing from,to,via > * multiply defined from,to,via > * via not part of from and to Would be great if it could also check this: * a way may not be in any "from" or "to" role if it goes *through* the junction (because in that case the information would be incomplete - you would need to know which part of the way is meant!). Nic has said that he uses the "restriction=..." tag to clarify these. I don't like that idea but if it is used widely then my above rule would have to be lifted for relations with a "restriction..." defined. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] JOSM: tag-renaming for multiple nodes/ways "broken"
Hi, Shaun McDonald wrote: > You shouldn't be doing mass changes in data, unless you are absolutely > certain of what you are doing. True, but Stefan is right, it was possible before to change a certain KEY for a group of objects without affecting the VALUE. If this is not possible anymore, then someone working on the whole autocompletion magic has broken it ;-) fullquote to josm-dev. > On 13 Sep 2008, at 14:48, Stefan Neufeind wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> in the past I'm quite sure that e.g. in case multiple nodes had tags >> "amenityyy" (with spelling-error) you could simply select them all at >> one and rename to "amenity". JOSM showed the values as "" >> during editing, but surely kept the original values after clicking >> okay. >> >> However that is not the case anymore. You get when >> editing, >> and the individual values are removed from all nodes, thus resulting >> in >> "" being the new value. That effectively destroys data in >> the >> database :-( >> >> Not sure how many data is already affected. >> >> Maybe somebody knows what caused this and could come up with a quick- >> fix? >> >> >> Regards, >> Stefan >> >> ___ >> talk mailing list >> talk@openstreetmap.org >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] turn restriction checker
Gosmore will also need the restriction=... tag. It's hard for a proposal to become official if people keep on adding things. Even worse is that they don't define what these new things mean. On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 2:49 PM, Franc Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I hacked up a quick perl script to look for common problems in turn > restrictions > (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Routing:_turn_restrictions) > that I am seeing. > > It checks for:- > * missing from,to,via > * multiply defined from,to,via > * via not part of from and to > > It needs Geo::OSM; > > I could 'put it somewhere' if there is any interest and an appropriate place > can be suggested > > cheers > > -- > Franc > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[Freeswitch-users] call getting pre-answered
-> [Freeswitch-users] call getting pre-answered talk <-- Thread --> <-- Date --> [Freeswitch-users] call getting pre-answered Gayatri Kulkarni Sat, 13 Sep 2008 07:40:01 -0700 [Freeswitch-users] call getting pre-answered Gayatri Kulkarni Reply via email to [Freeswitch-users] call getting pre-answered Gayatri Kulkarni Reply via email to [Freeswitch-users] call getting pre-answered Gayatri Kulkarni Reply via email to
Re: [OSM-talk] JOSM: tag-renaming for multiple nodes/ways "broken"
You shouldn't be doing mass changes in data, unless you are absolutely certain of what you are doing. Shaun On 13 Sep 2008, at 14:48, Stefan Neufeind wrote: > Hi, > > in the past I'm quite sure that e.g. in case multiple nodes had tags > "amenityyy" (with spelling-error) you could simply select them all at > one and rename to "amenity". JOSM showed the values as "" > during editing, but surely kept the original values after clicking > okay. > > However that is not the case anymore. You get when > editing, > and the individual values are removed from all nodes, thus resulting > in > "" being the new value. That effectively destroys data in > the > database :-( > > Not sure how many data is already affected. > > Maybe somebody knows what caused this and could come up with a quick- > fix? > > > Regards, > Stefan > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] JOSM: tag-renaming for multiple nodes/ways "broken"
Hi, in the past I'm quite sure that e.g. in case multiple nodes had tags "amenityyy" (with spelling-error) you could simply select them all at one and rename to "amenity". JOSM showed the values as "" during editing, but surely kept the original values after clicking okay. However that is not the case anymore. You get when editing, and the individual values are removed from all nodes, thus resulting in "" being the new value. That effectively destroys data in the database :-( Not sure how many data is already affected. Maybe somebody knows what caused this and could come up with a quick-fix? Regards, Stefan ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] turn restriction checker
I hacked up a quick perl script to look for common problems in turn restrictions ( http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Routing:_turn_restrictions ) that I am seeing. It checks for:- * missing from,to,via * multiply defined from,to,via * via not part of from and to It needs Geo::OSM; I could 'put it somewhere' if there is any interest and an appropriate place can be suggested cheers -- Franc ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Large Hadron Collider at CERN now in OppenStreetMap
Would it be correct to tag a black hole "Physical: Highway_Parallel_Universe_link"? http://www.cyriak.co.uk/lhc/lhc-webcams.html On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 2:43 AM, OJ W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Done, see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/ for the map. > > b.t.w. we were wondering about the spelling of "Route Planc" on the > CERN map - a google search for "Route Planck" returns more results, > and would seem to fit better with the "scientists" road-naming > convention in that area. > > > On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 2:39 PM, David Groom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Definately commended. It gets my vote for next weeks featured image. >> >> David >> >> ___ >> talk mailing list >> talk@openstreetmap.org >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk >> >> > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > -- Tel: +44(0) 7814 517 807 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Large Hadron Collider at CERN now in OppenStreetMap
Done, see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/ for the map. b.t.w. we were wondering about the spelling of "Route Planc" on the CERN map - a google search for "Route Planck" returns more results, and would seem to fit better with the "scientists" road-naming convention in that area. On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 2:39 PM, David Groom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Definately commended. It gets my vote for next weeks featured image. > > David > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Roads in vasayas (Guimaras, Panay and Negros)
Currently uploading a couple of roads from 1:250K out-of-copyright maps in Guimaras, Panay and Negros Island with following tags. I hope local mappers in Visayas would improve it. More will come later. cheers, maning ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
