Re: [Tagging] Using destination_sign relations for pedestrian navigation

[Antoine Riche via Tagging]

Thank for your reponses so far. Any views on loosening the constraints 
on member types and cardinalities ?


Le 05/09/2019 à 19:33, yo paseopor a écrit :

Using established is the best way, but look at this, it could be useful
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Extended_traffic_signs_tagging#Destination_signs

It covers all kind of traffic signs, also destination traffic signs, 
so it would be useful for a pedestrian destination traffic sign 
description and your routing subject.


Salut i mapes (Health and maps)
yopaseopor


On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 9:31 AM Antoine Riche via Tagging 
mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:


Hello.

We are working with SNCF, the french railway company, to provide
pedestrian navigation inside and around railway stations in the
Greater Paris area. A dedicated routing engine, which provides
indoor/outdoor navigation and supports area routing, has been
developed – this will be presented during SOTM in Heidelberg.

In order to improve the user experience, we want to provide
walking instructions such as "take the exit 'Rue de Londres'" or
"Walk through the gate labelled 'Northern lines'" rather than
"Walk 75 metres then turn left". Our problem is that such
waypoints may have a different name depending on the direction you
cross them. The solution we used is to create, when there is such
an ambiguity, two destination_sign relations pointing to the same
'intersection' member, one for each direction with the 'from' and
'to' members swapped. Here is an example at Juvisy station : the
entrance named 'Accès Danton' when walking in
(https://www.osm.org/relation/9471596) is named 'Quartier Seine'
when walking out (https://www.osm.org/relation/9471597).

I wish to amend the Wiki to explain that destination_sign
relations can also be used for pedestrian and indoor routing, not
just at "crossroads". Does that require opening a discussion in
the discussion page, or may I just go ahead ?

Now since the routing engine supports area routing, we need to
loosen some constraints on the members, that are documented on the
wiki and enforced by the JOSM validator :
1/ allow areas for the 'from' and 'to' members, as in this example
: https://www.osm.org/relation/9722912
2/ allow multiple 'intersection' members, so that multiple doors
can be referenced by a single relation – example in Gare
Montparnasse : https://www.osm.org/relation/9823029
3/ allow multiple 'to' members, so that the same relation can
point to both a line and an area, and cover linear and area
routing (no example but I could create one).

Are there objections to this proposal ? Do you recommend to open
this subject on the Discussion page or is it best discussing it on
this list ?

Regards,
Antoine.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Using destination_sign relations for pedestrian navigation

[Antoine Riche via Tagging]

Hello.

We are working with SNCF, the french railway company, to provide 
pedestrian navigation inside and around railway stations in the Greater 
Paris area. A dedicated routing engine, which provides indoor/outdoor 
navigation and supports area routing, has been developed – this will be 
presented during SOTM in Heidelberg.


In order to improve the user experience, we want to provide walking 
instructions such as "take the exit 'Rue de Londres'" or "Walk through 
the gate labelled 'Northern lines'" rather than "Walk 75 metres then 
turn left". Our problem is that such waypoints may have a different name 
depending on the direction you cross them. The solution we used is to 
create, when there is such an ambiguity, two destination_sign relations 
pointing to the same 'intersection' member, one for each direction with 
the 'from' and 'to' members swapped. Here is an example at Juvisy 
station : the entrance named 'Accès Danton' when walking in 
(https://www.osm.org/relation/9471596) is named 'Quartier Seine' when 
walking out (https://www.osm.org/relation/9471597).


I wish to amend the Wiki to explain that destination_sign relations can 
also be used for pedestrian and indoor routing, not just at 
"crossroads". Does that require opening a discussion in the discussion 
page, or may I just go ahead ?


Now since the routing engine supports area routing, we need to loosen 
some constraints on the members, that are documented on the wiki and 
enforced by the JOSM validator :
1/ allow areas for the 'from' and 'to' members, as in this example : 
https://www.osm.org/relation/9722912
2/ allow multiple 'intersection' members, so that multiple doors can be 
referenced by a single relation – example in Gare Montparnasse : 
https://www.osm.org/relation/9823029
3/ allow multiple 'to' members, so that the same relation can point to 
both a line and an area, and cover linear and area routing (no example 
but I could create one).


Are there objections to this proposal ? Do you recommend to open this 
subject on the Discussion page or is it best discussing it on this list ?


Regards,
Antoine.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Wild changes to wiki pages changing the cycleway tagging scheme

[Antoine Riche via Tagging]

Hello.
(message resent without annoying formatting, apologies)

Yesterday Wiki user Cmuelle8 
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Cmuelle8) changed a number of 
Wiki pages with the following comment :(opposite_lane is a value for 
unaffixed legacy cycleway=* tags (!!), it has no meaning with 
cycleway:left, cycleway:right and cycleway:both and must not be used in 
combination; use *:oneway=* which is indpendent of left/right hand 
traffic systems)


The pages affected are 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key%3Acycleway and 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle, as well as the french 
version of the former. There might be others.


Cmuelle introduces rather complex combinations of tags such as 
cycleway:left=lane + cycleway:left:oneway=-1, that should in his view be 
used instead of cycleway:left=opposite_lane. 
 Does anyone on 
this list know whether this change has been discussed anywhere, and 
where and when it has been decided that cycleway=opposite_lane is a 
"legacy tag" ? If so please point me at some references.


I cannot find any recent discussion about this and am wondering whether 
this wiki change is an attempt to force a change in the model with no 
discussion with the community...


Antoine.


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Wild changes to wiki pages changing the cycleway tagging scheme

[Antoine Riche via Tagging]

Hello.

Yesterday Wiki user Cmuelle8 
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Cmuelle8) changed a number of 
Wiki pages with the following comment :(opposite_lane is a value for 
unaffixed legacy cycleway=* tags (!!), it has no meaning with 
cycleway:left, cycleway:right and cycleway:both and must not be used in 
combination; use *:oneway=* which is indpendent of left/right hand 
traffic systems)


The pages affected are 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key%3Acycleway and 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle, as well as the french 
version of the former. There might be others.


Cmuelle introduces rather complex combinations of tags such as 
cycleway:left 
=lane 
 + 
cycleway :left 
:oneway 
=-1 
. that should in 
his view be used instead of cycleway:left=opposite_lane. 
 Does anyone on 
this list know whether this change has been discussed anywhere, and 
where and when it has been decided that cycleway=opposite_lane is a 
"legacy tag" ? If so please point me at some references.


I cannot find any recent discussion about this and am wondering whether 
this wiki change is an attempt to force a change in the model with no 
discussion with the community...


Antoine.


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging