[mkgmap-dev] Hiding long tunnels from map view while keeping them routable

2015-10-20 Thread Marko Mäkelä 

On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 12:03:52AM -0700, GerdP wrote:
Esp. the tags which express a planned (or not yet planned) status are 
problematic, they may be non-existent bridges or tunnels.


Speaking of tunnels, would it be technically possible to hide tunnels 
from the map view, while keeping them in the routing graph? This could 
be useful in urban areas. A few years ago, I added rules to hide 
unrouteable tunnels, such as highway=service,access=private, or railway 
tunnels (subways).


A separate discussion is whether it is practically feasible to hide such 
tunnels from the map display in the default style. In my opinion, it 
would be. As long as the tunnel exists in the routing graph, it can be 
used for routing (typically, for cars only). Pedestrians and bicyclists 
or anyone who is at the street level would not be confused by seeing the 
map cluttered with the "bogus" road.


Best regards,

Marko
___
mkgmap-dev mailing list
mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk
http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev

Re: [mkgmap-dev] Hiding long tunnels from map view while keeping them routable

2015-10-20 Thread Gerd Petermann 
Hi Marko,

I don't know any way to hide an object in the map without a typ file,
besides that I would not want to hide it completely.

Gerd


Von: mkgmap-dev-boun...@lists.mkgmap.org.uk 
 im Auftrag von Marko Mäkelä 

Gesendet: Dienstag, 20. Oktober 2015 09:47
An: Development list for mkgmap
Betreff: [mkgmap-dev] Hiding long tunnels from map view while keeping them  
routable

On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 12:03:52AM -0700, GerdP wrote:
>Esp. the tags which express a planned (or not yet planned) status are
>problematic, they may be non-existent bridges or tunnels.

Speaking of tunnels, would it be technically possible to hide tunnels
from the map view, while keeping them in the routing graph? This could
be useful in urban areas. A few years ago, I added rules to hide
unrouteable tunnels, such as highway=service,access=private, or railway
tunnels (subways).

A separate discussion is whether it is practically feasible to hide such
tunnels from the map display in the default style. In my opinion, it
would be. As long as the tunnel exists in the routing graph, it can be
used for routing (typically, for cars only). Pedestrians and bicyclists
or anyone who is at the street level would not be confused by seeing the
map cluttered with the "bogus" road.

Best regards,

Marko
___
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

Re: [mkgmap-dev] [patch v1] don't route the highway=construction ways

2015-10-20 Thread chris66 
Am 16.10.2015 um 20:46 schrieb Alexandre Loss:
> I agree also that "mkgmap:ignore-for-routing=yes" is more clear.

I used this tag already in OSM to mark isolated ways. :-)

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/111674198#map=18/54.3354/8.5915

Chris



___
mkgmap-dev mailing list
mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk
http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev

Re: [mkgmap-dev] [patch v1] don't route the highway=construction ways

2015-10-20 Thread Gerd Petermann 
Hi Andrzej,

okay, I see. I've implemented parts of the code to support a map 
containing NET without NOD file, I am not sure if Garmin 
maps also use the corresponding flags to disable routing on selected
roads. If that is not the case I agree that we should try to find another 
solution.

Gerd




Von: mkgmap-dev-boun...@lists.mkgmap.org.uk 
 im Auftrag von Andrzej Popowski 

Gesendet: Dienstag, 20. Oktober 2015 00:44
An: mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk
Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] [patch v1] don't route the highway=construction ways

Hi Gerd,

 > The patch implements a way to have a line
 > with a routable type that appears in NET but not in NOD.
 > In other words, the NET file doesn't contain a pointer into NOD.

I only express concern, that it could break routing, because it looks
like a quite non-standard approach.

--
Best regards,
Andrzej
___
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

Re: [mkgmap-dev] [patch v1] don't route the highway=construction ways

2015-10-20 Thread Gerd Petermann 
Hi Chris,
glad to see that you did not use the mkgmap: prefix ;-)

Gerd


Von: mkgmap-dev-boun...@lists.mkgmap.org.uk 
 im Auftrag von chris66 

Gesendet: Dienstag, 20. Oktober 2015 10:52
An: mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk
Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] [patch v1] don't route the highway=construction   
ways

Am 16.10.2015 um 20:46 schrieb Alexandre Loss:
> I agree also that "mkgmap:ignore-for-routing=yes" is more clear.

I used this tag already in OSM to mark isolated ways. :-)

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/111674198#map=18/54.3354/8.5915

Chris



___
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

Re: [mkgmap-dev] highway=razed

2015-10-20 Thread GerdP 
Hi all,

I've changed my mind regarding the mop up rule.
During the last days I've done a lot of cleanup work in
OSM to reduce the number of special cases, but I still
see various different tags highway=*
which express some kind of planning state or a variant
of disused,dismantled,abandonded.
Esp. the tags which express a planned (or not yet planned) 
status are problematic, they may be non-existent bridges or
tunnels. 
I still try to build up my mind regarding the tags
which express some kind of life cycle, there is obviously a need
for a new tag and a clear wiki...

Gerd



GerdP wrote
> Hi Andrzej,
> 
> okay, I've left the "mop up" rule. In some cases it will catch
> "wrong" tagging of "correct" roads, e.g. when 
> a way has the highway=crossing tag instead of something like
> highway=footway;footway=crossing
> 
> Gerd
> 
>> To: 

> mkgmap-dev@.org

>> From: 

> popej@.onet

>> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 15:07:14 +0200
>> Subject: Re: [mkgmap-dev] highway=razed
>> 
>> Hi Gerd,
>> 
>>  > I think 1st I wanted to point out that the "mop up" rule
>>  > should be removed, it is likely to produce wrong routing.
>> 
>> I doubt it could make a really bad routing, it is nearly the lowest 
>> category of road anyway. As a result IMHO it goes to personal 
>> preferences, whether to use it. Do not remove it - if you don't like it, 
>> then leave it as comment.
>> 
>> There are more similar problems in default style. For example, should we 
>> create a point for a "place=", which has no name?
>> 
>> Maybe simple to use something like {echotags "FIXME"} to give warnings, 
>> whenever we are not sure of a proper solution? This will delegate 
>> problem to an actual user.
>> 
>> -- 
>> Best regards,
>> Andrzej
>> ___
>> mkgmap-dev mailing list
>> 

> mkgmap-dev@.org

>> http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
> 
> ___
> mkgmap-dev mailing list

> mkgmap-dev@.org

> http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev





--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/highway-razed-tp5854935p5857419.html
Sent from the Mkgmap Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
mkgmap-dev mailing list
mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk
http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev