Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap routing service

[Bjørn Bürger]

Lambertus wrote:
> Your suggestions are great, it would be nice to be able to classify ways 
> with properties like e.g. nice scenery, low traffic, smooth surface, 
> etc. 

Yes, something like that. The user interface could probably
have some kind of switch or slider:

[--]
slow/scenery/holiday commute/fast  race/ignore_all_rules

;-)

> Also allowing to choose if you want to take ferry's into account

definitely

> when calculating a route as well as public transport would be awsome. 

I  don't know if this will be even remotely possible, but that
would be some kind of an killer application.

Deutsche Bahn AG already does something like a "light" version of that
with its "Mobility Check", a comparison between car and train for a
selected relation. But it comes along with horrible maps, a crude
interface and it reflects only the decision "train vs. car"

OSM based services will do better. It is only a matter of time :-)

> Bjoern Buerger wrote:
>  > Example: 
>  > [...]

Uh, something went wrong with those links in the original mail.
The correct links would be:



... and for Braunschweig - Kassel:


Greetings,
Bjørn

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Cycle lanes

[Bjørn Bürger]

Karl Newman wrote:
> You still haven't solved the left/right problem. For example, house 
> numbers are commonly even on one side and odd on the other. 

Not in Braunschweig: Many of our streets are numbered this way:

1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - [...] - 131
== \
[...] 136 - 135 - 134 - 133 - 133

 > How do you indicate odd/even with the "from...to"
 > structure you mention without using left/right
 > (or some equivalent)?

good point.

Bjørn

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Cycle lanes

[Bjørn Bürger]

Karl Newman wrote:
> I don't know why everyone's opposed to left/right. It's unambiguous, 
 > and properly structured it would not be difficult for
 > editors to accommodate it.

Hmm, IMO neither north/south, nor left/right are a good solution for
this problem. The only clean solution would be a relation, saying
something like "feature=abc from node=x to node=y".

Bjørn

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Cycle lanes

[Bjørn Bürger]

Sven Grüner wrote:
> Being considered a fanatical biker by my friends as well I share that
> believe.

;-)

> This worked fine when focussing on car-traffic but when we really want
> to provide high-quility (usable for routing/navigation) data of footways
> and cycleways I'm afraid we need a different approach.

True. But it's hard to think of an abstraction, for something like ...

"This is a highway with duty-to-use cycleways on either side, but
the cycleway on the left side is mostly on a different level of
height, has a paved surface and looses right of way on some
crossings (because it slightly moves away from the main highway
while there is no way to switch to the street before that).
The other cycleway has an unpaved surface, is mostly oneway, except
the part between somewhere and somewhereelse (and between ... and ... 
you are free to use either the street or the cycleway whereas
on some parts the cycleway is incomplete or missing"

(That was the description for my way to work and I have
  seen stuff like that all over Europe so far)

> You're coming to tomorrows Stammtisch?

yes.

Bjørn


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Cycle lanes

[Bjørn Bürger]

Ben Laenen wrote:
> I beg to differ here. When you have to tag cycleways belonging to a road 
> not as "highway=whatever, cycleway=track" but as 
> separate "highway=cycleway" they just become an editing mess, 
> especially at intersections. 

Yes, but this is also the reality for cyclists. Everything involving
cycleways is actually a mess, unfortunately. That is, because a
bicycle is (mostly) not seen as an equal means of transportation.
But on the map, each distinct lane/track of a cycleway should
be handled like e.g. the single lanes of a motorway/highway: Even the
tiniest cycle-lane beneath a street has a different usage profile, 
different size and surface, different access rules, different right
of way, etc. than the street. So IMO it clearly needs it's own way.

> Especially when adding route relations to 
> them. Just imagine two dual carriage ways with on either side a 
> cycleway crossing: you then need 24 different ways to just represent 
> that one intersection, like this:
> 
>   
> ---- cycleway
> ---- road
> ---- road
> ---- cycleway
>   

Yes, that's odd. But it is reality and we have to live with it.
It will get easier, if support for that stuff is added to the editors.

> * Here's the big argument: There's no information lost by adding tags to 
> the road like "cycleway=track" (we need a few more tags though for the 
> more exotic cases, like when the cycle track also serves as sidewalk), 

Interesting idea - but then you should also skip all
those different highway=* types in favour of a generic way.
A big motorway could be added with something like ...

highway=true
highway_type=high_cypacity_motorway_for_fast_vehicles
highway_carriageways=2
highway_carriageway_left_lanes=2
highway_carriageway_right_lanes=4
[...]

wow, that's cute ;-)¹

> * You can usually arbitrarily go from the cycleway to the main road (to 
> cross it for example).

Though this might be true for your personal reality, a osm based routing
algorithm shouldn't do anything like that. No navigation system would 
advise you to do a u-turn on a big motorway (at any arbitrary location). 
Why should this be true for a cycle map?

> I've tagged the cycleways as their own highway once, but just doing that 
> I got quickly convinced that doing that was just a bad idea

You are right. At the moment, it is a bad idea to just map things like 
that. We have to think this through, maybe ask the routing people for 
advice and replace those myriads of different descriptions in the wiki
with one description, which actually works for all [tm] ;-)²

Bjørn

¹) You may want to add some virtual irony=more_or_less_sublte tag here
²) Yes, i know - nearly impossible. But we can try³...
³) I am just trying to get all the peaces together...

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk