Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - TMC - New tagging scheme for TMC
On 14/05/12 07:10, Eckhart Wörner wrote: Hi, Am Samstag, 12. Mai 2012, 18:31:26 schrieb fly: The inspector shows wrong data. Seems to me that the system was not updated after the last proposal changes and now the tags are mixed up. http://osm-tmc.infoware.de/tmc/?view=tmclon=7.60801lat=47.58486zoom=16overlays=tmc_database,missing_tmc_links,tmc_links,tmc_points,ways_with_tmc_tags_ok,link_ways_with_too_many_ends,ways_with_tmc_tags_error,nodes_with_tmc_tags_ok,nodes_with_tmc_tags_error,connection_and_end_nodes_ok,connection_and_end_nodes_error,ways_with_tmc_tags_non_areas,ways_with_tmc_tags_areas,ways_in_rels_with_tmc_tags,tmc_areas,nodes_with_tmc_tags The DE:*-* and DE:*+* need to be switch the sides of the road. Are you sure? In Germany we drive on the right side of the road, and that side seems to match the tmc tagging used by the original proposal from infoware (not my proposal though), which has everything reversed. That is what I wrote. It should be turned around. By the way, where do you get the data from and is it somewhere available ? With the old scheme there existed another website with the data. (http://osm.anders-hamburg.de/?lcd=1) Cheers ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - TMC - New tagging scheme for TMC
Am Montag, 14. Mai 2012, 17:04:19 schrieb fly: By the way, where do you get the data from and is it somewhere available ? With the old scheme there existed another website with the data. (http://osm.anders-hamburg.de/?lcd=1) the German import is described here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/TMC/TMC_Import_Germany#The_import Eckhart ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - TMC - New tagging scheme for TMC
Hi, Am Samstag, 12. Mai 2012, 18:31:26 schrieb fly: The inspector shows wrong data. Seems to me that the system was not updated after the last proposal changes and now the tags are mixed up. http://osm-tmc.infoware.de/tmc/?view=tmclon=7.60801lat=47.58486zoom=16overlays=tmc_database,missing_tmc_links,tmc_links,tmc_points,ways_with_tmc_tags_ok,link_ways_with_too_many_ends,ways_with_tmc_tags_error,nodes_with_tmc_tags_ok,nodes_with_tmc_tags_error,connection_and_end_nodes_ok,connection_and_end_nodes_error,ways_with_tmc_tags_non_areas,ways_with_tmc_tags_areas,ways_in_rels_with_tmc_tags,tmc_areas,nodes_with_tmc_tags The DE:*-* and DE:*+* need to be switch the sides of the road. Are you sure? In Germany we drive on the right side of the road, and that side seems to match the tmc tagging used by the original proposal from infoware (not my proposal though), which has everything reversed. (btw, I'd really like to see more input from infoware in this discussion.) By the way: Where is the tmc location at the boarder ? At the boarder control or at the real boarder ? I guess at the real border. Eckhart ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - TMC - New tagging scheme for TMC
On 30/03/12 18:04, Heinrich Knauf wrote: Am 29.03.2012 20:02, schrieb Tobias Knerr: Graham Jones wrote: Err...what does tmc stand for? TMC stands for Traffic Message Channel, see e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_Message_Channel It's a standardized format for transmitting information about blocked roads, traffic jams, accidents etc. They have IDs for road sections to be able to describe where one of these events has happened, and mapping these IDs in OSM would make it possible to use TMC messages in OSM-based navigation software. In Germany, we had a huge discussion about TMC a while ago because the previous tagging scheme for TMC IDs was pretty horrible - see this node for example: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/595024 So I'm happy that there is now a much more sensible proposal available. Heinrich Knauf wrote: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Proposed_features/New_TMC_scheme This is clearly a massive improvement. The long and detailed description makes it look a bit more complicated than it really is, but considering that it also gives some background about how TMC works and explains why the proposal makes these exact suggestions, the length of the text seems reasonable. Apart from the obvious improvements (shorter keys, country codes instead of numbers etc.), I especially appreciate that it should be relatively hard to break even if you don't know much about it. You can still split a way with tmc=... tag or move some of its nodes without causing any harm. And if you do break something nevertheless, it will probably be easy to spot most of the time. So, I think this proposal is as mapper-friendly as possible, considering the complex subject matter. Btw, have you considered to create some rendering of these TMC tags to make them more visually accessible? Tobias ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging Hello Tobias, thank you for the nice feedback and for your assistance in explaining what TMC is. You asked for a means of making tmc tags more accessible? Yes, there might be. First, there is our TMC Inspector which you may like to try. Visit http://osm-tmc.infoware.de/tmc/ The inspector shows wrong data. Seems to me that the system was not updated after the last proposal changes and now the tags are mixed up. http://osm-tmc.infoware.de/tmc/?view=tmclon=7.60801lat=47.58486zoom=16overlays=tmc_database,missing_tmc_links,tmc_links,tmc_points,ways_with_tmc_tags_ok,link_ways_with_too_many_ends,ways_with_tmc_tags_error,nodes_with_tmc_tags_ok,nodes_with_tmc_tags_error,connection_and_end_nodes_ok,connection_and_end_nodes_error,ways_with_tmc_tags_non_areas,ways_with_tmc_tags_areas,ways_in_rels_with_tmc_tags,tmc_areas,nodes_with_tmc_tags The DE:*-* and DE:*+* need to be switch the sides of the road. Cheers fly By the way: Where is the tmc location at the boarder ? At the boarder control or at the real boarder ? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - TMC - New tagging scheme for TMC
Hi everybody, based on the changes I believe are important I added a modified proposal to the wiki: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE_talk:Proposed_features/New_TMC_scheme#Neues_Proposal Changes: * Versions are an (optional) part of the proposal. If they are not needed, they can be left out, so this does not complicate tagging. * TABCD is enclosed by : on both sides now. * Directions of ways are properly taken into account. Ignoring the direction makes TMC information useless on non-oneway ways (which I already argued for in a previous mail). * Point locations may have an extent. * Added some informational notes about error checking. Eckhart ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - TMC - New tagging scheme for TMC
On 29/04/12 17:08, Eckhart Wörner wrote: Hi everybody + Eckhart based on the changes I believe are important I added a modified proposal to the wiki: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE_talk:Proposed_features/New_TMC_scheme#Neues_Proposal Changes: * Versions are an (optional) part of the proposal. If they are not needed, they can be left out, so this does not complicate tagging. * TABCD is enclosed by : on both sides now. * Directions of ways are properly taken into account. Ignoring the direction makes TMC information useless on non-oneway ways (which I already argued for in a previous mail). * Point locations may have an extent. * Added some informational notes about error checking. Thanks for your work ! It looks really good. I have only one point left: What to do with more than on TMC route on one way. Do we still need relations for that ? Cheers Colliar ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - TMC - New tagging scheme for TMC
Hi Colliar, Am Sonntag, 29. April 2012, 18:49:39 schrieb fly: I have only one point left: What to do with more than on TMC route on one way. Do we still need relations for that ? no, we don't. My modified proposal skipped over that section (since I changed nothing in it), but the original proposal talks about this: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Proposed_features/New_TMC_scheme#Mehrere_Locations_an_einem_Way Eckhart ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - TMC - New tagging scheme for TMC
On 29/04/12 18:57, Eckhart Wörner wrote: Am Sonntag, 29. April 2012, 18:49:39 schrieb fly: I have only one point left: What to do with more than on TMC route on one way. Do we still need relations for that ? no, we don't. My modified proposal skipped over that section (since I changed nothing in it), but the original proposal talks about this: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Proposed_features/New_TMC_scheme#Mehrere_Locations_an_einem_Way Sorry, was a bit fast in reading and did not remember all points of original proposal. Thanks Colliar ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - TMC - New tagging scheme for TMC
Am Sonntag, 29. April 2012, 17:08:05 schrieb Eckhart Wörner: based on the changes I believe are important I added a modified proposal to the wiki: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE_talk:Proposed_features/New_TMC_scheme#Neues_Proposal Changes: * Versions are an (optional) part of the proposal. If they are not needed, they can be left out, so this does not complicate tagging. * TABCD is enclosed by : on both sides now. * Directions of ways are properly taken into account. Ignoring the direction makes TMC information useless on non-oneway ways (which I already argued for in a previous mail). * Point locations may have an extent. * Added some informational notes about error checking. I forgot to mention another change: * 20+5 now means going from LCD 20 to LCD 5, which is way more intuitive (the original proposal maps 20+5 to going from LCD 5 to LCD 20) Eckhart ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - TMC - New tagging scheme for TMC
Am 05.04.2012 04:27, schrieb Eckhart Wörner: Hi, (sorry for starting a new thread, I just subscribed to the list) infoware GmbH, Bonn, Germany, and Geofabrik GmbH, Karlsruhe, Germany, have developed an improved tagging scheme for TMC data which we would like to propopose to the OSM community. I believe this is much needed, so thank you for starting this effort. The one thing I like very much about the proposal is that it allows people to start using TMC information without spending too much time implementing insane heuristics or programming shortest path algorithms. However, I feel like there are some problems with your design, which should be discussed on a mailing list, since Wiki discussions are ugly. 1) The big problem: missing directional information Let's assume there is a way in OSM tagged tmc=DE:123+456;DE:456-123. One also has real-time traffic information that talks about a traffic jam at LCD 456, negative direction, extent 1. One therefore knows that this traffic jam affects DE:123-456, and since we have a way with that information, we know that this way is affected. However, there's one problem: which direction of the way is affected? It could be either the direction from the first point of the way to the last (called forward from now on), or vice versa (backward). This essential information is missing and makes the TMC information on non-oneway ways useless. There are several solutions to this problem. Probably the best solution is not using the tmc tag at all, but using tmc:forward and tmc:backward instead. Thus assuming the direction of the way is from LCD 123 to LCD 456, the tagging would be tmc:forward=DE:123+456, tmc:backward=DE:456-123. forward and backward are already used in tagging (for example, maxspeed:forward) and are also protected by tools. E.g. if you try to reverse the before-mentioned way, JOSM suggests to swap tmc:forward and tmc:backward (which is the correct thing to do in that case). That's no problem at all. The TMC direction must not be mixed up with the driving direction, which here does not matter at all. All that counts is the direction given (and defined) by the TMC data. If a traffic event extends forward woth respect to the direction defined by TMC, then + is used, if it extends in the revers direction, we use -. This is very concise, and using forward or backward instead would just blow the tags. 2) A matter of taste: + and - I'm not sure how others are feeling about this, but I find DE:123+456, DE:456-123 somehow confusing. Here's an alternate proposal: DE:123+456 becomes DE:123-456, and DE:456-123 becomes DE:123-456 (notice the changed order). Therefore, the LCD order is encoded in the position of the numbers, and the movement between the LCDs is encoded in the arrow. I would go even one step further and allow ← (LEFTWARDS ARROW; U+2190) and → (RIGHTWARDS ARROW; U+2192) as an *alternative*. I know that not everybody knows how to enter these codes, but every editor and every operating system nowadays should be able to display them, and we have full unicode support in the database. Because of 1), DE:123/456 does not make sense at all. OK, I think special unicode characters should not be used at all because compatibility is uncertain and they are not available at any keyboard. Using + and - is just straightforward. I would not expected intereference or incompatibility with any other software from these, and for the tests that we made so far everything works fine. However, anybody having made experience with the issue what special characters to use for tagging without running into compatiblilty problems: Please would you share your ideas, your opinion is greatly appreciated. 3) Bad influence: TMC information at junctions One thing that I cannot wrap my head around is the TMC information *at* junctions. As far as I remember, a traffic jam at LCD 456, negative direction, extent 1 affects the road *between* LCD 123 and LCD 456, but not the actual junctions 123 or 456. However, the rules of adding tmc tags to the actual junctions influence a lot of maneuvers going over those junctions but not using any other part of the way. This is especially true for roundabouts or junctions between dual carriageways. Please could you supply an image, or probably refer to the figures and the numbering that we use in the proposals examples? That would make it a lot clearer. 4) Exits and entries TMC specifies messages that apply to entries or exits, which I feel are not adequately represented in the proposal, even though the proposal mentions them. For example, assume that the 2nd exit slip road going west at Köln-Süd (where I already discovered the new tagging) is closed (and I believe there is a TMC message for that). How do I find this 2nd slip road? (Yes, I picked a really hard one.) Isn't that just a matter of the granularity of TMC location coding versus OSM mapping? If so, then there's nothing to help about that with any TMC tagging scheme
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - TMC - New tagging scheme for TMC
Hi, Am Freitag, 20. April 2012, 14:32:17 schrieb Heinrich Knauf: 1) The big problem: missing directional information Let's assume there is a way in OSM tagged tmc=DE:123+456;DE:456-123. One also has real-time traffic information that talks about a traffic jam at LCD 456, negative direction, extent 1. One therefore knows that this traffic jam affects DE:123-456, and since we have a way with that information, we know that this way is affected. However, there's one problem: which direction of the way is affected? It could be either the direction from the first point of the way to the last (called forward from now on), or vice versa (backward). This essential information is missing and makes the TMC information on non-oneway ways useless. There are several solutions to this problem. Probably the best solution is not using the tmc tag at all, but using tmc:forward and tmc:backward instead. Thus assuming the direction of the way is from LCD 123 to LCD 456, the tagging would be tmc:forward=DE:123+456, tmc:backward=DE:456-123. forward and backward are already used in tagging (for example, maxspeed:forward) and are also protected by tools. E.g. if you try to reverse the before-mentioned way, JOSM suggests to swap tmc:forward and tmc:backward (which is the correct thing to do in that case). That's no problem at all. The TMC direction must not be mixed up with the driving direction, which here does not matter at all. All that counts is the direction given (and defined) by the TMC data. If a traffic event extends forward woth respect to the direction defined by TMC, then + is used, if it extends in the revers direction, we use -. This is very concise, and using forward or backward instead would just blow the tags. Please re-read my argument. (Note that I use positive/negative to indicate a direction along TMC chains, and forward/backward to indicate a direction along an OSM way). Arguing that the driving direction does not matter at all is wrong as soon as you're not talking about oneways anymore. An event affecting the positive direction of a TMC chain may affect either the forward or the backward direction of an OSM way, and this entirely depends on the OSM way. 3) Bad influence: TMC information at junctions One thing that I cannot wrap my head around is the TMC information *at* junctions. As far as I remember, a traffic jam at LCD 456, negative direction, extent 1 affects the road *between* LCD 123 and LCD 456, but not the actual junctions 123 or 456. However, the rules of adding tmc tags to the actual junctions influence a lot of maneuvers going over those junctions but not using any other part of the way. This is especially true for roundabouts or junctions between dual carriageways. Please could you supply an image, or probably refer to the figures and the numbering that we use in the proposals examples? That would make it a lot clearer. See http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE_talk:Proposed_features/New_TMC_scheme#Auswirkungen_von_TMC-Nachrichten_an_Kreuzungen for a discussion of the problem. 4) Exits and entries TMC specifies messages that apply to entries or exits, which I feel are not adequately represented in the proposal, even though the proposal mentions them. For example, assume that the 2nd exit slip road going west at Köln-Süd (where I already discovered the new tagging) is closed (and I believe there is a TMC message for that). How do I find this 2nd slip road? (Yes, I picked a really hard one.) Isn't that just a matter of the granularity of TMC location coding versus OSM mapping? If so, then there's nothing to help about that with any TMC tagging scheme whatsoever. Unless I'm wrong (and I haven't read the TMC specs in a while) this should be possible with TMC, OSM just needs to supply the relevant data. Anyway, parts of this have been covered in a different mail. Eckhart Wörner ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - TMC - New tagging scheme for TMC
On 20/04/12 14:32, Heinrich Knauf wrote: Am 05.04.2012 04:27, schrieb Eckhart Wörner: Thanks for you effort. 4) Exits and entries TMC specifies messages that apply to entries or exits, which I feel are not adequately represented in the proposal, even though the proposal mentions them. For example, assume that the 2nd exit slip road going west at Köln-Süd (where I already discovered the new tagging) is closed (and I believe there is a TMC message for that). How do I find this 2nd slip road? (Yes, I picked a really hard one.) Isn't that just a matter of the granularity of TMC location coding versus OSM mapping? If so, then there's nothing to help about that with any TMC tagging scheme whatsoever. I am not that into TMC but I thought there is a difference between a TMC Point and TMC Roads/Segments and that either a TMC Point might be blocked or some part of a Segment/Road (from Point A till Point D) with the TMC Points unblocked. Please tell me if I am wrong. With the new tagging system there is no difference between a way which is part of a TMC Point (eg roundabout or junction with several slip roads). In your wiki example of the roundabout let there be a small road intersect from the northeast. In order to get there comming from Point 7 you need to turn at the roundabout about 300° and using part of (20+8) and (20-5). Would this still work ? 5) Versioning You argue that versioning is not needed, since data can be changed in a timely manner, and the errors that appear are mostly harmless. I don't feel that way: a) Experience tells that data is not always changed in a timely matter, especially since TMC data does not appear on most of the maps. It takes a while to process data (being half a month outdated seems to be normal even for online routing), and offline maps make this situation worse (just look at the bug reports at MapDust that appeared since Skobbler had started shipping offline maps). b) When LCDs are inserted into chains, things break *badly*, since the extents are then out of sync as well. Since TMC tags will simply be part of all other road network data that any solution will use for mapping, navigaiton, etc., they will always fit together from the time of creation. So there's n need for versioning. On the other hand, it is abolutely certain that the issueing organisations that are in charge of TMC (like BASt in Germany) will never re-cycle previosly used location codes in a way that might create trouble. In my region there was and still is TMC data of the future available (version 9). This is due to changing routes and up/downgrading parts of the road system. The decision was made before the (re)constuction was finished. E.g. TMC data leads along roads with heavy constuctions or even non existing roads and was/is inconsistant with the routes on the ground (traffic signs). With the versioning I was able to tag the current (old) route and the future one. Best regards, Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Heinrich Knauf ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - TMC - New tagging scheme for TMC
Hi, Am Freitag, 20. April 2012, 14:32:17 schrieb Heinrich Knauf: 2) A matter of taste: + and - Using + and - is just straightforward. I would not expected intereference or incompatibility with any other software from these, and for the tests that we made so far everything works fine. I'll take this one back, in the context of my other mails + and - look like a sane solution. Eckhart Wörner ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - TMC - New tagging scheme for TMC
I want to come back to the question from fly: how shall TMC-points be tagged (or shouldn't they?). Somehow we should have them visible in the Editor (because otherwise tagging TMC on ways would also become difficult), but besides from having them explicitly in the data maybe they could also be pulled from a parallel system at editing time. They are official anyway, and there won't be much need for a mapper to move them around or modify them in other ways. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - TMC - New tagging scheme for TMC
Am 10.04.2012 05:33, schrieb Martijn van Exel: On 3/29/2012 7:01 AM, Heinrich Knauf wrote: Hello, infoware GmbH, Bonn, Germany, and Geofabrik GmbH, Karlsruhe, Germany, have developed an improved tagging scheme for TMC data which we would like to propopose to the OSM community. Currently, this feature is explained in German only. Pelase refer to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Proposed_features/New_TMC_scheme http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/New_TMC_Scheme Your comments are greatly appreceated! Heinrich, That looks like a huge improvement from the existing proposal. A few questions for clarification and discussion: * In this proposal, the actual TMC LCDs are not technically required, are they? If all the ways are tagged according to this schema, you can look up the segments just by looking at the ways? I guess having the LCD encoded onto nodes will speed up lookup. * How do you plan to make this huge effort (even just for Germany) manageable? I mean, it's simpler than it looks, but it still is a *lot* of work. A JOSM plugin? A dedicated website to track progress and show bugs / inconsistencies? Other supporting tools for mappers? * Do you (or anyone) have any info on the 'openness' of this data in other countries? I believe they are proprietary data here in the US, not sure though (will ask in talk-us). Martijn, I do not yet have an idea about a plug-in for JOSM, but TMC inspector is already online: Visit http://osm-tmc.infoware.de/tmc/ (Please report if the link does not work.) I think this is a good means of visualizing the state of TMC mapping. And there is another project at infoware to install and run a server that continuously shows the current traffic status on these road segments that are tagged according to the the new scheme. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Heinrich Knauf infoware GmbH Riemenschneiderstr. 11 53175 Bonn GERMANY facebook_follow_us http://facebook.infoware.de/ office: +49 228 338899-21 email: kn...@infoware.de mailto:kn...@infoware.de web: www.infoware.de http://www.infoware.de infoware Gesellschaft für Informationstechnik mbH Geschäftsführer: Thomas Schulte-Hillen, Martin Langhoff; Sitz Bonn; Amtsgericht Bonn HRB 14141 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - TMC - New tagging scheme for TMC
Hi, Am Mittwoch, 11. April 2012, 15:42:29 schrieb fly: I still do not get one major point which was totally left out on the first scheme. What actually belongs to a point and how are they tagged. Especially on big crossings and roundabouts I always was confused (e.g. it might be possible that a part of this point is blocked but how do I know which one and you might be able to use the first/last exit/entrance of a junction but not the rest. ) Indeed, this is what I was worried about as well. Here's a proposed (partial) fix, which starts from the original proposal. Let's assume that 123, 456 and 789 are connected LCD which describe a road. Further assume that at 456 there's a big intersection. Then: - All ways between 123 and 456 are marked tmc=DE:123+456, and all ways between 456 and 789 are marked tmc=DE:456+789. - All ways on the intersection 456 leading from 123 to 789 are then marked tmc=DE:456+. This has several advantages: - A traffic jam between 123 and 456 will not block the intersection 456 anymore. - Exits are defined as follows: an exit at 456 in positive direction starts at a way that is tagged either tmc=DE:456+ or tmc=DE:123+456 (from), uses a node that is part of a way tagged either tmc=DE:456+ or tmc=DE:456+789 (via) and ends at a way that is tagged neither tmc=DE:456+ nor tmc=DE:456+789, nor tmc=DE:123+456 (to). An exit is therefore a maneuver. This may sound a bit technical at first, but none of this is exposed to the tagging, and the idea of an exit is probably quite intuitive. - Likewise, entries are defined. - Automatic consistency checking is still possible, as there are no holes. There is at least one issue that still has to be addressed: this tagging does not imply an ordering of the exits / entries; it is not clear what the first, second… exit would be. Eckhart Wörner ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - TMC - New tagging scheme for TMC
On 10/04/12 06:12, Martijn van Exel wrote: On 4/9/2012 9:33 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote: On 3/29/2012 7:01 AM, Heinrich Knauf wrote: Hello, infoware GmbH, Bonn, Germany, and Geofabrik GmbH, Karlsruhe, Germany, have developed an improved tagging scheme for TMC data which we would like to propopose to the OSM community. Currently, this feature is explained in German only. Pelase refer to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Proposed_features/New_TMC_scheme http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/New_TMC_Scheme Your comments are greatly appreceated! I still do not get one major point which was totally left out on the first scheme. What actually belongs to a point and how are they tagged. Especially on big crossings and roundabouts I always was confused (e.g. it might be possible that a part of this point is blocked but how do I know which one and you might be able to use the first/last exit/entrance of a junction but not the rest. ) That looks like a huge improvement from the existing proposal. A few questions for clarification and discussion: * In this proposal, the actual TMC LCDs are not technically required, are they? If all the ways are tagged according to this schema, you can look up the segments just by looking at the ways? I guess having the LCD encoded onto nodes will speed up lookup. * How do you plan to make this huge effort (even just for Germany) manageable? I mean, it's simpler than it looks, but it still is a *lot* of work. A JOSM plugin? A dedicated website to track progress and show bugs / inconsistencies? Other supporting tools for mappers? There was only the inspector and a overlay for the first round in Germany and it worked. On that topic: how was this updated? Manually? Or was there some monitoring bot active that kept these values updated? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/TMC/TMC_Import_Germany/Roads#roads_to_import_2 Think this was all handwork. cu fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - TMC - New tagging scheme for TMC
On 4/9/2012 9:33 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote: On 3/29/2012 7:01 AM, Heinrich Knauf wrote: Hello, infoware GmbH, Bonn, Germany, and Geofabrik GmbH, Karlsruhe, Germany, have developed an improved tagging scheme for TMC data which we would like to propopose to the OSM community. Currently, this feature is explained in German only. Pelase refer to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Proposed_features/New_TMC_scheme http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/New_TMC_Scheme Your comments are greatly appreceated! Heinrich, That looks like a huge improvement from the existing proposal. A few questions for clarification and discussion: * In this proposal, the actual TMC LCDs are not technically required, are they? If all the ways are tagged according to this schema, you can look up the segments just by looking at the ways? I guess having the LCD encoded onto nodes will speed up lookup. * How do you plan to make this huge effort (even just for Germany) manageable? I mean, it's simpler than it looks, but it still is a *lot* of work. A JOSM plugin? A dedicated website to track progress and show bugs / inconsistencies? Other supporting tools for mappers? On that topic: how was this updated? Manually? Or was there some monitoring bot active that kept these values updated? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/TMC/TMC_Import_Germany/Roads#roads_to_import_2 * Do you (or anyone) have any info on the 'openness' of this data in other countries? I believe they are proprietary data here in the US, not sure though (will ask in talk-us). -- Martijn van Exel ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - TMC - New tagging scheme for TMC
Hi, (sorry for starting a new thread, I just subscribed to the list) infoware GmbH, Bonn, Germany, and Geofabrik GmbH, Karlsruhe, Germany, have developed an improved tagging scheme for TMC data which we would like to propopose to the OSM community. I believe this is much needed, so thank you for starting this effort. The one thing I like very much about the proposal is that it allows people to start using TMC information without spending too much time implementing insane heuristics or programming shortest path algorithms. However, I feel like there are some problems with your design, which should be discussed on a mailing list, since Wiki discussions are ugly. 1) The big problem: missing directional information Let's assume there is a way in OSM tagged tmc=DE:123+456;DE:456-123. One also has real-time traffic information that talks about a traffic jam at LCD 456, negative direction, extent 1. One therefore knows that this traffic jam affects DE:123-456, and since we have a way with that information, we know that this way is affected. However, there's one problem: which direction of the way is affected? It could be either the direction from the first point of the way to the last (called forward from now on), or vice versa (backward). This essential information is missing and makes the TMC information on non-oneway ways useless. There are several solutions to this problem. Probably the best solution is not using the tmc tag at all, but using tmc:forward and tmc:backward instead. Thus assuming the direction of the way is from LCD 123 to LCD 456, the tagging would be tmc:forward=DE:123+456, tmc:backward=DE:456-123. forward and backward are already used in tagging (for example, maxspeed:forward) and are also protected by tools. E.g. if you try to reverse the before-mentioned way, JOSM suggests to swap tmc:forward and tmc:backward (which is the correct thing to do in that case). 2) A matter of taste: + and - I'm not sure how others are feeling about this, but I find DE:123+456, DE:456-123 somehow confusing. Here's an alternate proposal: DE:123+456 becomes DE:123-456, and DE:456-123 becomes DE:123-456 (notice the changed order). Therefore, the LCD order is encoded in the position of the numbers, and the movement between the LCDs is encoded in the arrow. I would go even one step further and allow ← (LEFTWARDS ARROW; U+2190) and → (RIGHTWARDS ARROW; U+2192) as an *alternative*. I know that not everybody knows how to enter these codes, but every editor and every operating system nowadays should be able to display them, and we have full unicode support in the database. Because of 1), DE:123/456 does not make sense at all. 3) Bad influence: TMC information at junctions One thing that I cannot wrap my head around is the TMC information *at* junctions. As far as I remember, a traffic jam at LCD 456, negative direction, extent 1 affects the road *between* LCD 123 and LCD 456, but not the actual junctions 123 or 456. However, the rules of adding tmc tags to the actual junctions influence a lot of maneuvers going over those junctions but not using any other part of the way. This is especially true for roundabouts or junctions between dual carriageways. 4) Exits and entries TMC specifies messages that apply to entries or exits, which I feel are not adequately represented in the proposal, even though the proposal mentions them. For example, assume that the 2nd exit slip road going west at Köln-Süd (where I already discovered the new tagging) is closed (and I believe there is a TMC message for that). How do I find this 2nd slip road? (Yes, I picked a really hard one.) 5) Versioning You argue that versioning is not needed, since data can be changed in a timely manner, and the errors that appear are mostly harmless. I don't feel that way: a) Experience tells that data is not always changed in a timely matter, especially since TMC data does not appear on most of the maps. It takes a while to process data (being half a month outdated seems to be normal even for online routing), and offline maps make this situation worse (just look at the bug reports at MapDust that appeared since Skobbler had started shipping offline maps). b) When LCDs are inserted into chains, things break *badly*, since the extents are then out of sync as well. Eckhart Wörner ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - TMC - New tagging scheme for TMC
Am 29.03.2012 20:02, schrieb Tobias Knerr: Graham Jones wrote: Err...what does tmc stand for? TMC stands for Traffic Message Channel, see e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_Message_Channel It's a standardized format for transmitting information about blocked roads, traffic jams, accidents etc. They have IDs for road sections to be able to describe where one of these events has happened, and mapping these IDs in OSM would make it possible to use TMC messages in OSM-based navigation software. In Germany, we had a huge discussion about TMC a while ago because the previous tagging scheme for TMC IDs was pretty horrible - see this node for example: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/595024 So I'm happy that there is now a much more sensible proposal available. Heinrich Knauf wrote: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Proposed_features/New_TMC_scheme This is clearly a massive improvement. The long and detailed description makes it look a bit more complicated than it really is, but considering that it also gives some background about how TMC works and explains why the proposal makes these exact suggestions, the length of the text seems reasonable. Apart from the obvious improvements (shorter keys, country codes instead of numbers etc.), I especially appreciate that it should be relatively hard to break even if you don't know much about it. You can still split a way with tmc=... tag or move some of its nodes without causing any harm. And if you do break something nevertheless, it will probably be easy to spot most of the time. So, I think this proposal is as mapper-friendly as possible, considering the complex subject matter. Btw, have you considered to create some rendering of these TMC tags to make them more visually accessible? Tobias ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging Hello Tobias, thank you for the nice feedback and for your assistance in explaining what TMC is. You asked for a means of making tmc tags more accessible? Yes, there might be. First, there is our TMC Inspector which you may like to try. Visit http://osm-tmc.infoware.de/tmc/ (Please report if the link does not work.) And there is another project at infoware to install and run a server that continuously shows the current traffic status on these road segments that are tagged according to the the new scheme. Regards, Heinrich Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Heinrich Knauf infoware GmbH Riemenschneiderstr. 11 53175 Bonn GERMANY facebook_follow_us http://facebook.infoware.de/ office: +49 228 338899-21 email: kn...@infoware.de mailto:kn...@infoware.de web: www.infoware.de http://www.infoware.de infoware Gesellschaft für Informationstechnik mbH Geschäftsführer: Thomas Schulte-Hillen, Martin Langhoff; Sitz Bonn; Amtsgericht Bonn HRB 14141 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - TMC - New tagging scheme for TMC
Err...what does tmc stand for? Thanks Graham from my phone On 29 Mar 2012 14:02, Heinrich Knauf kn...@infoware.de wrote: Hello, infoware GmbH, Bonn, Germany, and Geofabrik GmbH, Karlsruhe, Germany, have developed an improved tagging scheme for TMC data which we would like to propopose to the OSM community. Currently, this feature is explained in German only. Pelase refer to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/**wiki/DE:Proposed_features/New_**TMC_schemehttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Proposed_features/New_TMC_scheme http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/**wiki/Proposed_features/New_**TMC_Schemehttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/New_TMC_Scheme Your comments are greatly appreceated! Best regards, Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Heinrich Knauf [[User: infoware_kna]] infoware GmbH Riemenschneiderstr. 11 53175 Bonn GERMANY office: +49 228 338899-21 email:kn...@infoware.de web:www.infoware.de OSM: infoware_kna infoware Gesellschaft für Informationstechnik mbH Geschäftsführer: Thomas Schulte-Hillen, Martin Langhoff; Sitz Bonn; Amtsgericht Bonn HRB 14141 __**_ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/tagginghttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - TMC - New tagging scheme for TMC
Am 29. März 2012 18:51 schrieb Graham Jones grahamjones...@gmail.com: Err...what does tmc stand for? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_Message_Channel cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - TMC - New tagging scheme for TMC
Graham Jones wrote: Err...what does tmc stand for? TMC stands for Traffic Message Channel, see e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_Message_Channel It's a standardized format for transmitting information about blocked roads, traffic jams, accidents etc. They have IDs for road sections to be able to describe where one of these events has happened, and mapping these IDs in OSM would make it possible to use TMC messages in OSM-based navigation software. In Germany, we had a huge discussion about TMC a while ago because the previous tagging scheme for TMC IDs was pretty horrible - see this node for example: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/595024 So I'm happy that there is now a much more sensible proposal available. Heinrich Knauf wrote: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Proposed_features/New_TMC_scheme This is clearly a massive improvement. The long and detailed description makes it look a bit more complicated than it really is, but considering that it also gives some background about how TMC works and explains why the proposal makes these exact suggestions, the length of the text seems reasonable. Apart from the obvious improvements (shorter keys, country codes instead of numbers etc.), I especially appreciate that it should be relatively hard to break even if you don't know much about it. You can still split a way with tmc=... tag or move some of its nodes without causing any harm. And if you do break something nevertheless, it will probably be easy to spot most of the time. So, I think this proposal is as mapper-friendly as possible, considering the complex subject matter. Btw, have you considered to create some rendering of these TMC tags to make them more visually accessible? Tobias ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
