Re: [OSM-talk-be] Complex kruispunt / Complex crossing

2014-05-13 Thread Jo
We have more recent AGIV imagery now. All I see wrong is that the cycleway
is connected to the underground waterway. But the main road is too.
Probably to silence validator warnings in a totally inappropriate way...

I still think it's correct to draw the cycleways separate cases like this.

Marc, you opened a can of worms there :-) But it's good that the subject of
using separate ways to represent lanes is brought up on the list.

Jo


2014-05-13 8:15 GMT+02:00 Wouter Hamelinck wouter.hameli...@gmail.com:

 Wow, based on the Bing images a simple T-crossing and a bypass is all
 there is in reality.
 Also, note the nice examples of about everything that can go wrong
 when drawing parallel cycleways along the N47.

 wouter

 2014-05-13 6:35 GMT+02:00 Jo winfi...@gmail.com:
  Zeker wel, het klopt niet om een aparte weg te tekenen voor elk rijvak.
 
  Absolutely, using a separate way to represent traffic lanes is not how
 it's
  supposed to be done.
 
  Jo
 
 
  2014-05-13 5:48 GMT+02:00 Marc Gemis marc.ge...@gmail.com:
 
  Hallo,
 
  Ik vraag me af of het OK is het volgende kruispunt te vereenvoudigen via
  turn:lanes : http://osm.org/go/0Ejo5_fqb--?way=51738440
 
  I wonder whether it's ok to simplify the following crossing with
  turn:lanes tagging: http://osm.org/go/0Ejo5_fqb--?way=51738440
 
  met vriendelijke groeten
  regards
 
  m
 
  ___
  Talk-be mailing list
  Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
  https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
 
 
 
  ___
  Talk-be mailing list
  Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
  https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
 



 --
 Den som ikke tror på seg selv kommer ingen vei.
- Thor Heyerdahl

___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be


Re: [OSM-talk-be] Complex kruispunt / Complex crossing

2014-05-13 Thread Marc Gemis
Jo,

a can of worms ? I hope it , this mailing list is too quiet :-)

Wouter,

While I understand that for routing one does not need the separate
cycleways, I don't see much difference in a router that sends me over the
N47 with separate cycleways (illegal in your eyes) or without separate
cycleways (ok for you).

The possible problem with a badly connected separate cycleway, is that a
GPS with very high precision, won't let me make the second left turn into
Baan nr. 90

So as long as the N47 is not tagged with bicycle = no, there won't be any
problem IMHO
But as you wrote, you get the same result with less work by putting tags on
the main road.

regards

m



On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 10:34 AM, Wouter Hamelinck 
wouter.hameli...@gmail.com wrote:

 OK, I'll bite about the cycleway.

 Go a bit south and you will see something called Macharisdreef and
 something called Baan nr. 90. Imagine you want to cycle from
 Macharisdreef to Baan nr. 90 along that N47 and use only the map data
 as a routing algorithm would do.
 * First attempt: well it is obvious, you just take the cycleway at the
 east of the N47 to cycle from the one to the other. Shortest, lots of
 cycleway, it looks perfect. Reality: this is illegal, you only can
 follow that cycleway north, otherwise you cycle on the wrong side of
 the road. So we have to correct the data. Let's say we put a
 oneway=yes on the eastern cycleway.
 * Second attempt: well obvious again, you simply take the N47 instead
 of that cycleway. Only slightly longer, a bit less attractive, but not
 too bad. Reality: this is illegal. There are cycleways, you have to
 follow those. So we have to correct the data. Somehow we have to make
 explicit that you are not supposed to cycle on the N47 but have to
 follow the parallel cycleways. So let's put some tag explaining that
 on the N47. I don't really care which one. It could be boldly
 bicycle=no or the proposed bicycle=use_sidepath or whatever. I'm just
 not supposed to cycle over the highway=primary.
 * Third attempt: let's see. When leaving Macharisdreef, I have only
 two options. Either I take the N47, but that is illegal, or I take the
 cycleway east of N47. Nothing else connects to Marcharisdreef. So my
 only option is to follow the eastern cycleway to the north. Hmm, I
 then can cross the N47 right before that terribly complicated junction
 and start following the western cycleway. Until I find a place to
 cross the N47 again. The first one that I find is right at the
 roundabout about 500m to the south. There, I can traverse to the
 eastern cycleway and follow that north to Baan nr. 90. OK, I have a
 solution. Not exactly short (about 1km instead of the 50m in my
 previous attempts), but at least it is legal. Reality: not entirely
 legal (at least at the roundabout you should go around it instead of
 traversing before the roundabout), but close enough for me. With the
 slightest bit of common sense I wouldn't follow that anyhow. What I
 would do is traverse N47, follow the western cycleway and traverse
 again when I am at Baan nr. 90. Why didn't the algorithm propose that?
 Simple: the road to the east of N47 are not connected to the western
 cycleway and vice verse. So we have to modify the data again. At every
 point where there is a sideroad from only one side we need to add a
 short cycleway to connect the cycleway on the other side with the
 junction.

 Once those junctions are made, I will get the obvious, correct route.

 Conclusion: lots of work and near impossible to maintain.

 Now, let's see what happens if I tag the cycle paths on the
 highway=primary in stead of drawing them separately. It is in any case
 a lot less work. No need to draw the separate cycleways and no need to
 add all the technical tags on both highway=primary and
 highway=cycleway that I described previously to get correct results. I
 just add cycleway=lane or something similar to the highway=primary.
 What does the algorithm say? I will just say: At the end of
 Macharisdreef turn left on N47. I know there are are cycle lanes so
 you should follow those instead of cycling in the middle of the road.
 And after 50m you turn left in Baan nr. 90..
 Simple, clear, robust.

 That is why I only will draw separate cycleways if there really is no
 other option. Even if it is not wrong to draw to the cycleway
 separately, it is just a lot of work, impossible to maintain and a
 huge source of errors waiting to happen.

 Bonus question 1: what happens with routing for pedestrians in both
 situations?
 Bonus question 2: in how many ways is it possible to make mistakes
 when mapping cycling routes? Especially the case of a route that can
 be followed in both directions is enlightening.
 Bonus question 3: which situation has the least tags (=lowest database
 size) and the least junctions and ways (=greater efficiency for
 routing algorithms like Dijkstra)?

 wouter

 On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 9:16 AM, Jo winfi...@gmail.com wrote:
  We have more recent AGIV 

[OSM-talk-be] Complex kruispunt / Complex crossing

2014-05-12 Thread Marc Gemis
Hallo,

Ik vraag me af of het OK is het volgende kruispunt te vereenvoudigen via
turn:lanes : http://osm.org/go/0Ejo5_fqb--?way=51738440

I wonder whether it's ok to simplify the following crossing with turn:lanes
tagging: http://osm.org/go/0Ejo5_fqb--?way=51738440

met vriendelijke groeten
regards

m
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be


Re: [OSM-talk-be] Complex kruispunt / Complex crossing

2014-05-12 Thread Jo
Zeker wel, het klopt niet om een aparte weg te tekenen voor elk rijvak.

Absolutely, using a separate way to represent traffic lanes is not how it's
supposed to be done.

Jo


2014-05-13 5:48 GMT+02:00 Marc Gemis marc.ge...@gmail.com:

 Hallo,

 Ik vraag me af of het OK is het volgende kruispunt te vereenvoudigen via
 turn:lanes : http://osm.org/go/0Ejo5_fqb--?way=51738440

 I wonder whether it's ok to simplify the following crossing with
 turn:lanes tagging: http://osm.org/go/0Ejo5_fqb--?way=51738440

 met vriendelijke groeten
 regards

 m

 ___
 Talk-be mailing list
 Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be


___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be