Re: [OSM-talk] Philosophy about Autorouting for Cyclists and new key class:bicycle

[steve brown]

Hey Felix

In OpenSatNav we use the phrase "turn by turn routing" or "turn by turn
navigation". Some call it "real time" or "live" navigation.

Steve

On 10 May 2010 15:05, Felix Hartmann  wrote:

>
>
> On 09.05.2010 13:18, Jens Müller wrote:
> > Am 03.05.2010 13:31, schrieb Felix Hartmann:
> >   >  Subject: Philosophy about Autorouting for Cyclists and new key
> > class:bicycle
> >
> >
> > What do you mean by "Autorouting"? Something else than just "routing"?
> >
> Well when I say autorouting I mean that a computer or GPS calculates a
> route, and I can follow it, and I get proper turn instructions like:
> Turn right into abcstreet cycleroute def.
>
> Many people take routing for following tracks, so that would mean no
> automatic calculation of the ways. Hence I say autorouting to avoid
> confusion. I don't think navigation is a better term either for the above.
> >
> > ___
> > talk mailing list
> > talk@openstreetmap.org
> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
> >
>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Philosophy about Autorouting for Cyclists and new key class:bicycle

[Felix Hartmann]

On 09.05.2010 13:18, Jens Müller wrote:
> Am 03.05.2010 13:31, schrieb Felix Hartmann:
>   >  Subject: Philosophy about Autorouting for Cyclists and new key
> class:bicycle
>
>
> What do you mean by "Autorouting"? Something else than just "routing"?
>
Well when I say autorouting I mean that a computer or GPS calculates a 
route, and I can follow it, and I get proper turn instructions like: 
Turn right into abcstreet cycleroute def.

Many people take routing for following tracks, so that would mean no 
automatic calculation of the ways. Hence I say autorouting to avoid 
confusion. I don't think navigation is a better term either for the above.
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Philosophy about Autorouting for Cyclists and new key class:bicycle

[Pieren]

I don't care very much about your routes, if they have to figure out in OSM
or not and how to tag them. What I don't want is to see the roads, streets,
avenues, boulevards cut at each intersection because some route is turning
left or turning right at that point.
I start to see this in Paris where we just have a few public transport and
bicycle routes and it makes the 'normal' edition of the basic things very
annoying.
So please find a new method to identify ANY routes in OSM without splitting
ways so we don't return to the old API's segments...

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Philosophy about Autorouting for Cyclists and new key class:bicycle

[Richard Mann]

On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 9:48 PM, Jens Müller  wrote:
> Am 03.05.2010 19:29, schrieb Richard Mann:
>> I think routers would be better served if we identify good through
>> routes (ie the equivalent of highway=primary for motorists), and
>> record them as relations,
>
> I thought a router is there to identify exactly that. Why do it manually?
>

Because routing algorithms can't really deal with lots of multiple
factors efficiently. Sometimes it's simpler just to give them a big
hint: if you're heading in this general direction, this route works
better than the others. It also matches what humans do - we learn
certain pathways then tend to stick to them.

Richard

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Philosophy about Autorouting for Cyclists and new key class:bicycle

[Jean-Marc Liotier]

Erik Johansson wrote:
> 
> FTR I think you all should map for child strollers  and add
> ramp=yes/no tag to steps.. :-)

You may be kidding, but that actually is a useful feature for wheelchair 
access - wheelchair routing is a special case of pedestrian routing, 
that requires this sort of tag... And maybe child stroller users will 
use the wheelchair routing features...

http://www.rollstuhlrouting.de/ruhr2010/
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:wheelchair
http://tagwatch.stoecker.eu/Europe/En/keystats_wheelchair.html


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Philosophy about Autorouting for Cyclists and new key class:bicycle

[Jens Müller]

Am 09.05.2010 21:16, schrieb Erik Johansson:
> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 10:48 PM, Jens Müller  wrote:
>> >  Am 03.05.2010 19:29, schrieb Richard Mann:
>>> >>  I think routers would be better served if we identify good through
>>> >>  routes (ie the equivalent of highway=primary for motorists), and
>>> >>  record them as relations,
>> >
>> >  I thought a router is there to identify exactly that. Why do it manually?
> Depending on how I feel different routes are good, for fast cycling
> you can take one route and for normal transport you take another.

This will depend on characteristics of the ways, and you'll different 
routing settings to accomplish this.



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Philosophy about Autorouting for Cyclists and new key class:bicycle

[Erik Johansson]

On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 10:48 PM, Jens Müller  wrote:
> Am 03.05.2010 19:29, schrieb Richard Mann:
>> I think routers would be better served if we identify good through
>> routes (ie the equivalent of highway=primary for motorists), and
>> record them as relations,
>
> I thought a router is there to identify exactly that. Why do it manually?

Depending on how I feel different routes are good, for fast cycling
you can take one route and for normal transport you take another. It's
the same as taxi drivers take different routes depending on the
traffic.

FTR I think you all should map for child strollers  and add
ramp=yes/no tag to steps.. :-)
-- 
/emj

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Philosophy about Autorouting for Cyclists and new key class:bicycle

[Jens Müller]

Am 03.05.2010 13:31, schrieb Felix Hartmann:
 > Subject: Philosophy about Autorouting for Cyclists and new key 
class:bicycle


What do you mean by "Autorouting"? Something else than just "routing"?


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Philosophy about Autorouting for Cyclists and new key class:bicycle

[Jens Müller]

Am 03.05.2010 19:29, schrieb Richard Mann:
> I think routers would be better served if we identify good through
> routes (ie the equivalent of highway=primary for motorists), and
> record them as relations,

I thought a router is there to identify exactly that. Why do it manually?


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Philosophy about Autorouting for Cyclists and new key class:bicycle

[Jean-Marc Liotier]

Anton Martchukov wrote:
> Recently I was thinking about that it may be possible to create a program
> that will calculate a cycling route for you based on those facts from the
> database and your preferences. Maybe the result maybe rated
> by the users and those rates are used in calculations.

Ratings of the results is particularly interesting as it introduces a 
feedback mechanism to stream that elusive subjectivity back into the 
system. This sort of moderation could even be made social by letting the 
router choose the path preferred by users who have given similar 
ratings, or even take a social graph into account. In any case, this 
shows that if we want to let the subjective information bloom to its 
fullest potential, it should be confined to a layer above the foundation 
of objective data.


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Philosophy about Autorouting for Cyclists and new key class:bicycle

[Steve Bennett]

On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 6:12 AM, Anton Martchukov  wrote:
> As a cyclist myself I understand the reason for such a
> proposal, but such marking will be highly subjective and I
> would prefer to have more objective facts about my route in
> the database and then make my decision, some automatic tools
> may help me with this.

Yeah, speaking for myself, I don't need a tool that calculates the
"perfect" cycle route — a "good" route is fine. Although I obsess
endlessly over the perfect route (I spent hours trying to shave a few
hundred metres off my daily commute), I also accept that it doesn't
really matter that much.

So, I think basic information like "sealed, signposted cycle path"
adds a lot of value, but "avoid this road, it has a few pot holes" is
not so important. If anyone is collecting subjective information about
roads, it should perhaps be done outside OSM, but in a way that can be
linked. After all, if there is one organisation collecting subjective
information, there could be two or more - and they probably won't
agree.

Steve

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Philosophy about Autorouting for Cyclists and new key class:bicycle

[David Fawcett]

You may be interested in the CycloPath project.  http://cyclopath.org/

It is an OSM-like project for bicycle routes in Minneapolis - St.
Paul, Minnesota, USA.  A user can edit the cycle 'ways' and rate
preferences for different ways.  CycloPath can then generate
preferable routes for that user.

The code is under a modified Apache license and the data is licensed
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 License.

David.

On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 3:12 PM, Anton Martchukov  wrote:
> On Tue, May 04, 2010 at 10:19:39AM +0200, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote:
>
>> After fifteen years of riding across Paris, I have developed a pretty
>> good mental model of the city. I would not be capable of describing my
>> routing algorithm offhand, but it features (in decreasing order of
>> objectivity) distances, elevations, surfaces, waviness, congestion,
>> shopping opportunities, motorists behavior and the likelihood of pretty
>
> That's the things that should be mapped - the facts.
>
> Recently I was thinking about that it may be possible to create a program
> that will calulate a cycling route for you based on those facts from the
> database and your preferences. Maybe the result maybe rated
> by the users and those rates are used in calculations.
>
> As a cyclist myself I understand the reason for such a
> proposal, but such marking will be highly subjective and I
> would prefer to have more objective facts about my route in
> the database and then make my decision, some automatic tools
> may help me with this.
>
> --
> Anton Martchukov                     http://www.martchukov.com
> 0xFC4FBF28  96BC 3DAB 231A 7FCC 4F49  D783 9A69 65C1 FC4F BF28
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Philosophy about Autorouting for Cyclists and new key class:bicycle

[Anton Martchukov]

On Tue, May 04, 2010 at 10:19:39AM +0200, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote:

> After fifteen years of riding across Paris, I have developed a pretty 
> good mental model of the city. I would not be capable of describing my 
> routing algorithm offhand, but it features (in decreasing order of 
> objectivity) distances, elevations, surfaces, waviness, congestion, 
> shopping opportunities, motorists behavior and the likelihood of pretty 

That's the things that should be mapped - the facts.

Recently I was thinking about that it may be possible to create a program
that will calulate a cycling route for you based on those facts from the
database and your preferences. Maybe the result maybe rated
by the users and those rates are used in calculations.

As a cyclist myself I understand the reason for such a
proposal, but such marking will be highly subjective and I
would prefer to have more objective facts about my route in
the database and then make my decision, some automatic tools
may help me with this.

-- 
Anton Martchukov http://www.martchukov.com
0xFC4FBF28  96BC 3DAB 231A 7FCC 4F49  D783 9A69 65C1 FC4F BF28

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Philosophy about Autorouting for Cyclists and new key class:bicycle

[Jean-Marc Liotier]

Richard Mann wrote:
 > I think routers would be better served if we identify good through
 > routes (ie the equivalent of highway=primary for motorists), and
 > record them as relations, perhaps
 > "network=lcn+status=unofficial+signposted=no". But Andy's a strict
 > objectivist, which rather gets in the way of documenting this sort of
 > approach.

I lean on the objectivist side, but the boundary between objective and 
subjective may not be whether or not the route is signposted. Take for 
example how unmarked ski itineraries are tagged in OSM 
(http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ski#Grooming) :

   "piste:grooming=backcountry" describes off-piste cross-country
   skiing, often referred to as "backcountry touring", where tracks
   are made manually by skiers.

Those are not actual pistes but mere itineraries - often not even 
signposted. They are every bit as virtual and as subjective as your 
favorite cycling thoroughfare: they are just the snow equivalent of an 
optimal path beaten by repetitive traffic. And the subjective tags may 
just be the equivalent of that for cycling.

Still on the objectivist side... But I think I understand the 
subjectivist argument better.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Philosophy about Autorouting for Cyclists and new key class:bicycle

[Felix Hartmann]

On 04.05.2010 11:40, Ben Laenen wrote:
> Felix Hartmann wrote:
>
>> On 03.05.2010 21:47, Ben Laenen wrote:
>>  
>>> Here's the thing: we just do not map unofficial routes. Only the ones
>>> that are signposted. There are enough sites where you can submit your
>>> route suggestions, and there's no reason why this should be in the OSM
>>> database.
>>>
>> Well there is a big reason to do so. You cannot import such routes and
>> map then onto existing streets. Also no such sites feature a tagging
>> interface that is accessible with the tracks. They will not help
>> autorouting at all. The data therefore has to be in OSM to be used (a
>> parallel database would be stupid, because due to the small amount of
>> data would IMHO cause more traffic and data growth than doing it
>> directly in OSM).
>>  
> I agree that it's tricky to link route data to the proper ways in OSM one the
> two were separated, since lots of things could happen to the OSM data. But is
> that a reason to put everyone's favourite route in OSM, just because it would
> be "easier"?
>
> You'd actually make it much harder to map in OSM, because many mappers still
> cannot handle relations well and route relations regularly get broken by these
> inexperienced mappers. Not to mention the fact that say if a crossroad would
> be replaced by a roundabout, we get a huge extra burden to map everything
> correctly if that place was so popular that a few hundred of these routes were
> crossing it and you'd have to split that roundabout up in a lot of small
> pieces just to be able to map all routes correctly with proper
> forward/backward roles.
>
That is a valid point, and I don't like the answer its strictly an 
editor problem
> And who'll be maintaining someone's favourite route? Would I be allowed to
> take the route and slightly adjust it so it would be a little more scenic? Or
> should I then add my own route as well which would then be 99% the same as the
> first one, because I'm not allowed to destroy his favourite route by changing
> it slightly? Would someone be even allowed to delete a favourite route, or are
> we stuck with it forever if someone adds it in OSM? Also, I'm personally
> already discussing enough objective things, that I don't want to end up in
> long conversations where I also have to discuss some route which in my eyes
> doesn't make sense, but someone else found was pretty nice, but wasn't aware
> of some better alternatives for example.
>
> At least with signposted routes you don't end up with these discussions about
> subjective things. There it's clear what needs to be mapped.
>
>
Well here I am partly with you. We are more and more getting into social 
web, and OSM should not try to exclude itself. So for as long as the 
editor problem is not solved, we should make up the requirement that a 
route has to be published and documented somewhere (and of course put a 
big note not to infringe copyrights).  Documentation can be either in 
signposts, CCBYSA compatible brochures, blogs, or wikis.

Wiki format would actually be the best. Because we could start building 
community mapped relations. Meaning not only the relation itself is from 
multiple persons, but also the description, additional pictures, and so 
on is from community. It's actually a project I long had in mind but 
never got around doing. Because I simply have great problems 
understanding that we work on a really innovative project, but do our 
best to avoid recent developments (blogging and social networks are not 
new anymore, but have become part of many peoples life).

I am pretty sure, that 99% percent of OSM users would be fine with 
relations that are not signposted, if there exists CCBYSA compatible 
documentation.
>
>> We did not yet do so. But we also map other unofficial unphysical things
>> like boundaries (which are in no way public domain in Austria or
>> Germany, you are allowed to have information where you are, but not
>> where the boundary is running).
>>  
> I doubt you really cannot see a difference between boundaries (which are by no
> means unofficial by the way, they're very strictly defined by authorities) and
> a route someone likes very much.
>
>
Yes they are damn official, but not public. At least not down to 
community level. If you buy ground in Austria, you will have to pay at 
least a 3 digit sum to have cartographers decide which part of your 
property belongs to which community if you get remotely (say 10m) close 
to community boundary. Yes the boundaries are official, however the 
documentation about where the boundary is, is not public domain, but 
copyrighted. Only in certain cases it will be free to access this 
information and you will not get the boundary itself, but only into 
which community a point falls (e.g. if you need to know where your baby 
was born for the passport, or if there is an accident and there is 
trouble deciding which legislation applies). This is the same in ma

Re: [OSM-talk] Philosophy about Autorouting for Cyclists and new key class:bicycle

[Ben Laenen]

Felix Hartmann wrote:
> On 03.05.2010 21:47, Ben Laenen wrote:
> > Here's the thing: we just do not map unofficial routes. Only the ones
> > that are signposted. There are enough sites where you can submit your
> > route suggestions, and there's no reason why this should be in the OSM
> > database.
> 
> Well there is a big reason to do so. You cannot import such routes and
> map then onto existing streets. Also no such sites feature a tagging
> interface that is accessible with the tracks. They will not help
> autorouting at all. The data therefore has to be in OSM to be used (a
> parallel database would be stupid, because due to the small amount of
> data would IMHO cause more traffic and data growth than doing it
> directly in OSM).

I agree that it's tricky to link route data to the proper ways in OSM one the 
two were separated, since lots of things could happen to the OSM data. But is 
that a reason to put everyone's favourite route in OSM, just because it would 
be "easier"?

You'd actually make it much harder to map in OSM, because many mappers still 
cannot handle relations well and route relations regularly get broken by these 
inexperienced mappers. Not to mention the fact that say if a crossroad would 
be replaced by a roundabout, we get a huge extra burden to map everything 
correctly if that place was so popular that a few hundred of these routes were 
crossing it and you'd have to split that roundabout up in a lot of small 
pieces just to be able to map all routes correctly with proper 
forward/backward roles.

And who'll be maintaining someone's favourite route? Would I be allowed to 
take the route and slightly adjust it so it would be a little more scenic? Or 
should I then add my own route as well which would then be 99% the same as the 
first one, because I'm not allowed to destroy his favourite route by changing 
it slightly? Would someone be even allowed to delete a favourite route, or are 
we stuck with it forever if someone adds it in OSM? Also, I'm personally 
already discussing enough objective things, that I don't want to end up in 
long conversations where I also have to discuss some route which in my eyes 
doesn't make sense, but someone else found was pretty nice, but wasn't aware 
of some better alternatives for example.

At least with signposted routes you don't end up with these discussions about 
subjective things. There it's clear what needs to be mapped.


> We did not yet do so. But we also map other unofficial unphysical things
> like boundaries (which are in no way public domain in Austria or
> Germany, you are allowed to have information where you are, but not
> where the boundary is running).

I doubt you really cannot see a difference between boundaries (which are by no 
means unofficial by the way, they're very strictly defined by authorities) and 
a route someone likes very much.


> [...]

Greetings
Ben

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Philosophy about Autorouting for Cyclists and new key class:bicycle

[Richard Mann]

On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 8:47 PM, Ben Laenen  wrote:
> Here's the thing: we just do not map unofficial routes. Only the ones that are
> signposted. There are enough sites where you can submit your route
> suggestions, and there's no reason why this should be in the OSM database.
>
> Greetings
> Ben

I think there's a distinction between mapping 1000s of "favourite"
tours (bad) and identifying the handful of good through route-sections
that no-one's bothered to signpost yet (good, I think).

Finding routes in cities, there are often subtleties that don't get
tagged, and would be very difficult for a router to pick up by
algorithm, however much objective data you throw at it (eg - priority
at junctions, phase length at traffic lights, viable speed, 85%ile car
speed etc). Whereas if you throw a few "this route works quite well"
sections at an algorithm, it's got a chance.

I'd say we should have an agreed way of tagging "recommended"
route-sections, so that we have choice whether they go on maps, and
whether they get used by algorithms.

Whereas I'm not so convinced by grading individual route sections (for
urban cycling): it's just another piece of micro-data for the
algorithm, when what is needed is some meta-data.

Richard

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Philosophy about Autorouting for Cyclists and new key class:bicycle

[Jean-Marc Liotier]

Greg Troxel wrote:
> 
> The real difficulty is that different cyclists have different tolerances
> for riding in traffic.  What I consider ok is very different than what
> some others I cycle with consider ok.  The essence of tagging for
> cycle-friendliness of roads is to capture this judgement in a way that
> is consistent.
> [..]
> The real goal is that when I get to a -1 road then my mental projection
> of comfort from knowing -1 matches my experience.  Obviously impossible,
> but the closer the better.

After fifteen years of riding across Paris, I have developed a pretty 
good mental model of the city. I would not be capable of describing my 
routing algorithm offhand, but it features (in decreasing order of 
objectivity) distances, elevations, surfaces, waviness, congestion, 
shopping opportunities, motorists behavior and the likelihood of pretty 
girls walking by. The first items can be encoded easily, the middle ones 
could probably be encoded... But are you sure you want my highly 
subjective sexual preferences in the main database ? Subjective data is 
by essence not consensual. Including it can only lead to discord.

But wait, there is a way : stuff as much objective data in the base and 
let algorithms decide what to do with it and user preferences. Including 
shopping opportunities in the routing algorithm ? Just feed you shopping 
preferences in the algorithm and let it compute the route considering 
some gravitational attraction toward the relevant points of interest.

To me, the question about whether or not to include subjective data 
appears to be answered by enforcing separation between consensual 
objectivity in the common database and personal subjectivity in the 
algorithms that exploit it - and it sounds like what I understand of the 
current OSM doctrine.

Felix, don't whine about the database being motorist-centric : feed 
cycling relevant data into it and push innovative algorithms ! Others 
are doing it already.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Philosophy about Autorouting for Cyclists and new key class:bicycle

[Ulf Lamping]

Am 04.05.2010 03:15, schrieb Felix Hartmann:

> Arguing about how long someone is inside OSM, is an argument I cannot
> follow. Of course I have only been a member of OSM since 3 years, of
> wich the last 2 years I was more active than the first one. However
> putting prior achievement as a requirement for being allowed to voice
> opinion, is to me ultraconservative and hingering progress.

Oh, fine, reminding you that some other people around here spend a lot 
of effort before you even appeared makes me ultraconservative.

If you ask
> me, who I think is the person who has done most for OSM, I would say
> Carsten Schwede aka Computerteddy and Steve Ratcliffe because without
> their work, OSM wouldn't be anywhere near as popular. If someones work
> brought a few thousand people to OSM then to me he is more important
> than someone who maybe mapped 10x as much. However this should be blody
> irrelevant.

I guess Computerteddy is pretty much aware that he is standing on the 
shoulders of giants.

You don't seem to be aware of anything :-(

Regards, ULFL

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Philosophy about Autorouting for Cyclists and new key class:bicycle

[Felix Hartmann]

On 04.05.2010 00:00, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> Felix Hartmann wrote:
>
>> Sadly though many people in OSM are not able to leave their small
>> focussed mind and cannot espace their caged mind and try to use a
>> motorist perspective to do bicycle autorouting (e.g. CycleStreets
>>   or
>> Cycle_routes/cyclability
>> ).
>>  
> This is perhaps the most offensive thing I have ever read on these
> mailing lists, and I think you owe CycleStreets in particular - and
> those in OSM involved in cycle campaigning in general - an apology.
>
> Richard
>
>
I think they should rather feel honoured. They do good work, but in my 
opinion they should not accept that all data is motorist focussed, but 
also attack problems on how to make the data more usable for autorouting 
from a purely bicycle focussed point of view. I have laid this out from 
the top in context, and I don't consider it as offensive at all. From 
the standpoint that bicycle routing needs own tags, their approach is 
wrong/not comprehensive enough. They give a good example of trying hard 
to achieve the goal of nice routes, but as laid out in my opinion, will 
never reach that goal without changing focus.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Philosophy about Autorouting for Cyclists and new key class:bicycle

[Felix Hartmann]

On 04.05.2010 01:41, Ulf Lamping wrote:
> Am 03.05.2010 21:12, schrieb Felix Hartmann:
>
>> My actual position on this is, I will write a wiki page, with a note to
>> say bug off people against unofficial routes (because for mountainbiking
>> they will in a matter of days be largely more than signposted routes),
>> we will tag them route:unofficial:mtb=name and eveyone should give their
>> favourite routes a hefty go. People are much more interested in nice
>> routes than in difficulty, but according to tagwatch more than 25.000
>> ways have mtb:scale information, compared with maybe 50 mtb routes.
>>
>> If in OSM we really want to get in more mountainbikers, we have to start
>> with unofficial routes. I will think about it for the night, and put up
>> a wiki page tomorrow, put some notices on this on the big forums
>> (hopefully they will get ~5000 pageviews, put them in my feedburner
>> newsletter (1200 recipients) and as of next Friday render unofficial routes.
>>
>> Once we have more than 500 unofficial routes (I'ld say this takes no
>> more than 14 days), I will take out official routes form my maps, except
>> if they are labelled with additional information to make sure they are
>> not a trekking bike route labelled as mtb route.
>>
>> If someone starts kicking them out, we could take out their submissions
>> using a bot if they really feel like starting an edit war. It won't be
>> much worse than in the Russian military discussion, will it?
>>
>> I don't give a damn what Andy or some other people say. For me the only
>> rule in OSM and that counts, is that as long as you're not destructing
>> the work of others (like say you put in paragliding routes that make
>> editing a pain for everyone else) or largely irrelevant data that
>> clutters the database so it becomes unusable, just let them do it (hey,
>> in Austria we likely still have 20% of data junk from plan.at, and I
>> don't even want to start about the crap data in the USA). The amount of
>> information is nothing compared to all the remarks by bots and editors
>> or on imports.
>>  
> Hi Felix!
>
> Reading a lot of what you write makes me feel pretty sad.
>
> These "some other people" you are talking about actually spend several
> years of their life - before your appearance here - to bring OSM to
> something you seem to value enough for your ideas.
>
>
Arguing about how long someone is inside OSM, is an argument I cannot 
follow. Of course I have only been a member of OSM since 3 years, of 
wich the last 2 years I was more active than the first one. However 
putting prior achievement as a requirement for being allowed to voice 
opinion, is to me ultraconservative and hingering progress. If you ask 
me, who I think is the person who has done most for OSM, I would say 
Carsten Schwede aka Computerteddy and Steve Ratcliffe because without 
their work, OSM wouldn't be anywhere near as popular. If someones work 
brought a few thousand people to OSM then to me he is more important 
than someone who maybe mapped 10x as much. However this should be blody 
irrelevant.
> Is it really your intention to start a bot edit war if "they don't
> confirm to what I want"? Is this really your way to spread your idea and
> *convince* people that you have a good idea?
>
> What I'm missing here is - respect of other peoples work.
>
I am perfectly respecting anyones work. All my proposals are about 
adding things that do not crash any existing structure. I'm just saying 
if someone started an edit war, one could respond with a bot war.
>
> There seems to be a wide concensus in OSM that we don't want to tag
> something like "this is my favourite route" - at least that's basically
> what I understood what you want to do.
>
Well I and many others have understood this differently. I understood we 
should map everything that makes the maps better, and if it does without 
harming anyone, so lets rock. OSM will become more and more a place 
where the largest share of information (take History) is not interesting 
to the largest part of the users, and the ability for minorities to add 
their data into OSM is what brought big success. It is definitely not 
classification of data for motorcar users, nor quality of data, nor 
quantity of data, because in all three points we are far behind the 
competition. The point where OSM stands out, is the richness of 
attributes. Therfore I can't see the smallest valid reason, why someone 
should be against including "this is my favourite route". Even if every 
OSM participant adds relations for his favourite 1000 routes (which will 
not happen), the amount of data stays very small. There shall be no 
confusion with routes that exist in reality by using 
unofficial:route=mtb. The alternative is to simply not namespace it and 
go out and tag your favourite routes using keys just like it were 
signposted routes and you will cause harm. Just like people that put 
maxspeed=de:local instead of keeping maxspeed and addi

Re: [OSM-talk] Philosophy about Autorouting for Cyclists and new key class:bicycle

[Greg Troxel]

  [rant about cycle-centric tagging omitted]


I think the good/bad notion for roads for cycling is good.  But, we
should separate out "useful to get from here to there" with "how
comfortable is it to ride (per distance?)".  I know what you mean --
there are roads that I cycle on that I find very comfortable, and roads
that are so bad I just won't go.  It's not just about speed and width,
but about typical driver behavior.  (I live outside the city and drivers
are more polite to cyclists and generally in less of a hurry.)

Your schema seems to blend "is is safe/comfortable" with "is it pretty",
and those should be separate.  A cyclist who wants to get from here to
there is likely to want to take extra distance for safety, but not for
pretty.  But someone going out to ride just to ride will feel
differently.  This is not about the cyclist, but about the purpose of
the ride.

The real difficulty is that different cyclists have different tolerances
for riding in traffic.  What I consider ok is very different than what
some others I cycle with consider ok.  The essence of tagging for
cycle-friendliness of roads is to capture this judgement in a way that
is consistent.

Rubel publishes paper maps in my area, showing 'recommended roads for
cycling:

  http://www.bikemaps.com/regmaps.htm#samplmap

This is a binary system, and only roads that go somewhere are marked.
But, the goal is similar to what you are advocating - finding a route
without scary roads.

Perhaps a few example videos for each of the grades, so that people can
correlate the experiences?  Or turn the classification around and label
roads as:

  comfortable for novice, who only rides 10 hours/year on roads +2

  comfortable for experienced non-city road cyclists +1

  comfortable for urban bicycle commuter; tolerable for experienced
  non-city road cyclist =0

  tended to be avoided even by seasoned commuters = -1

  most cyclists would advise avoiding = -2

  almost all cyclist would tell you it is nuts to ride this road = -3

The real goal is that when I get to a -1 road then my mental projection
of comfort from knowing -1 matches my experience.  Obviously impossible,
but the closer the better.


pgpJfcQ5gA4O4.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Philosophy about Autorouting for Cyclists and new key class:bicycle

[M∡rtin Koppenhoefer]

2010/5/3 Richard Mann :
> I think routers would be better served if we identify good through
> routes (ie the equivalent of highway=primary for motorists), and
> record them as relations, perhaps
> "network=lcn+status=unofficial+signposted=no". But Andy's a strict
> objectivist, which rather gets in the way of documenting this sort of
> approach.

+1. I think this depends a lot on the surrounding: in the city you
have different needs and characteristics (besides the surface traffic,
traffic lights, pedestrians, together with width and decidated
cycle-lanes/-tracks are more important) than in the countryside (good
surface) / mountains (least elevation).

cheers,
Martin

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Philosophy about Autorouting for Cyclists and new key class:bicycle

[Ulf Lamping]

Am 03.05.2010 21:12, schrieb Felix Hartmann:
> My actual position on this is, I will write a wiki page, with a note to
> say bug off people against unofficial routes (because for mountainbiking
> they will in a matter of days be largely more than signposted routes),
> we will tag them route:unofficial:mtb=name and eveyone should give their
> favourite routes a hefty go. People are much more interested in nice
> routes than in difficulty, but according to tagwatch more than 25.000
> ways have mtb:scale information, compared with maybe 50 mtb routes.
>
> If in OSM we really want to get in more mountainbikers, we have to start
> with unofficial routes. I will think about it for the night, and put up
> a wiki page tomorrow, put some notices on this on the big forums
> (hopefully they will get ~5000 pageviews, put them in my feedburner
> newsletter (1200 recipients) and as of next Friday render unofficial routes.
>
> Once we have more than 500 unofficial routes (I'ld say this takes no
> more than 14 days), I will take out official routes form my maps, except
> if they are labelled with additional information to make sure they are
> not a trekking bike route labelled as mtb route.
>
> If someone starts kicking them out, we could take out their submissions
> using a bot if they really feel like starting an edit war. It won't be
> much worse than in the Russian military discussion, will it?
>
> I don't give a damn what Andy or some other people say. For me the only
> rule in OSM and that counts, is that as long as you're not destructing
> the work of others (like say you put in paragliding routes that make
> editing a pain for everyone else) or largely irrelevant data that
> clutters the database so it becomes unusable, just let them do it (hey,
> in Austria we likely still have 20% of data junk from plan.at, and I
> don't even want to start about the crap data in the USA). The amount of
> information is nothing compared to all the remarks by bots and editors
> or on imports.

Hi Felix!

Reading a lot of what you write makes me feel pretty sad.

These "some other people" you are talking about actually spend several 
years of their life - before your appearance here - to bring OSM to 
something you seem to value enough for your ideas.

Is it really your intention to start a bot edit war if "they don't 
confirm to what I want"? Is this really your way to spread your idea and 
*convince* people that you have a good idea?

What I'm missing here is - respect of other peoples work.


There seems to be a wide concensus in OSM that we don't want to tag 
something like "this is my favourite route" - at least that's basically 
what I understood what you want to do.

I'm not saying this is a concensus set in stone for the next hundred 
years, but convincing people by telling them "I will ask my 1000 MTB 
friends if you disagree" and "I will write a bot" is very certainly 
*not* the way to change peoples mind.

Regards, ULFL

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Philosophy about Autorouting for Cyclists and new key class:bicycle

[Liz]

On Tue, 4 May 2010, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> This is perhaps the most offensive thing I have ever read on these 
> mailing lists, and I think you owe CycleStreets in particular - and 
> those in OSM involved in cycle campaigning in general - an apology.
> 
I think you took the quote right out of context. 
In the reply-to it was 4 mails away from the one which you were actually 
quoting.

anyway I cycle and I drive so I don't need to escape my cage :)

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Philosophy about Autorouting for Cyclists and new key class:bicycle

[Liz]

On Tue, 4 May 2010, Ben Laenen wrote:
> Here's the thing: we just do not map unofficial routes. Only the ones that
>  are  signposted. There are enough sites where you can submit your route
>  suggestions, and there's no reason why this should be in the OSM database.
> 
-1

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Philosophy about Autorouting for Cyclists and new key class:bicycle

[Richard Fairhurst]

Felix Hartmann wrote:
> Sadly though many people in OSM are not able to leave their small
> focussed mind and cannot espace their caged mind and try to use a
> motorist perspective to do bicycle autorouting (e.g. CycleStreets
>  or
> Cycle_routes/cyclability
> ).

This is perhaps the most offensive thing I have ever read on these 
mailing lists, and I think you owe CycleStreets in particular - and 
those in OSM involved in cycle campaigning in general - an apology.

Richard

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Philosophy about Autorouting for Cyclists and new key class:bicycle

[Felix Hartmann]

On 03.05.2010 21:47, Ben Laenen wrote:
> Felix Hartmann wrote:
>
>> If in OSM we really want to get in more mountainbikers, we have to start
>> with unofficial routes. I will think about it for the night, and put up
>> a wiki page tomorrow, put some notices on this on the big forums
>> (hopefully they will get ~5000 pageviews, put them in my feedburner
>> newsletter (1200 recipients) and as of next Friday render unofficial
>>   routes.
>>
>> Once we have more than 500 unofficial routes (I'ld say this takes no
>> more than 14 days), I will take out official routes form my maps, except
>> if they are labelled with additional information to make sure they are
>> not a trekking bike route labelled as mtb route.
>>  
> Here's the thing: we just do not map unofficial routes. Only the ones that are
> signposted. There are enough sites where you can submit your route
> suggestions, and there's no reason why this should be in the OSM database.
>
> Greetings
> Ben
>
Well there is a big reason to do so. You cannot import such routes and 
map then onto existing streets. Also no such sites feature a tagging 
interface that is accessible with the tracks. They will not help 
autorouting at all. The data therefore has to be in OSM to be used (a 
parallel database would be stupid, because due to the small amount of 
data would IMHO cause more traffic and data growth than doing it 
directly in OSM).

We did not yet do so. But we also map other unofficial unphysical things 
like boundaries (which are in no way public domain in Austria or 
Germany, you are allowed to have information where you are, but not 
where the boundary is running). We also map skiroutes, and they are 
usually not signposted, and only randomly officialy noted. We have keys 
for grooming status of skipistes, and if you look in OSM there is loads 
of other info that is not physical or where there is good reason to not 
include it. However the big strength of OSM is that we do have all this 
data, and with time and crosschecking data, also other user classes can 
make good use of it. One nice example is that we don't map whether a 
street is inside a city or not. We do however map 
source:maxspeed:CountryCode=local/urban. With this information we can 
indirectly find out if a street is inside or outside of city boundaries. 
Over time with some smartness you can make up for many missing keys, but 
this is not enough to exclude others.
In future there will be a strong request for traffic information (oh 
yes, TMC is nothing better at all than unofficial routes, it is run by 
private companies and adding TMC serves no open data request at all - 
though I am sure people could argues pros here for pages too). Therefore 
I simply don't accept the point that we "don't" do something (as long as 
implementing it hurts noone). So having unofficial routes would have 
enough reason, and the only contra you bring is we don't do it because 
others do. Come on, at least try to be creative and give valid reasons 
why it should not be inside the OSM database. We don't do is is none. 
And that there are other websites for routes is even more lame. There 
are also other mapping data providers, but still we decided to go out 
and map.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Philosophy about Autorouting for Cyclists and new key class:bicycle

[Ben Laenen]

Felix Hartmann wrote:
> If in OSM we really want to get in more mountainbikers, we have to start
> with unofficial routes. I will think about it for the night, and put up
> a wiki page tomorrow, put some notices on this on the big forums
> (hopefully they will get ~5000 pageviews, put them in my feedburner
> newsletter (1200 recipients) and as of next Friday render unofficial
>  routes.
> 
> Once we have more than 500 unofficial routes (I'ld say this takes no
> more than 14 days), I will take out official routes form my maps, except
> if they are labelled with additional information to make sure they are
> not a trekking bike route labelled as mtb route.

Here's the thing: we just do not map unofficial routes. Only the ones that are 
signposted. There are enough sites where you can submit your route 
suggestions, and there's no reason why this should be in the OSM database.

Greetings
Ben

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Philosophy about Autorouting for Cyclists and new key class:bicycle

[Felix Hartmann]

On 03.05.2010 19:29, Richard Mann wrote:
> I think routers would be better served if we identify good through
> routes (ie the equivalent of highway=primary for motorists), and
> record them as relations, perhaps
> "network=lcn+status=unofficial+signposted=no". But Andy's a strict
> objectivist, which rather gets in the way of documenting this sort of
> approach.
>
> Richard
>
> 2010/5/3 Felix Hartmann:
>
>> ...
>>  
Well that is a second topic we should attack. Say for Mountainbiking 
official routes are mostly for trekking bikes, and not for 
mountainbikers. That is the reason that on gps-tour.info and other 
portals, Mountainbiking is the leading sport for tracks. Furhtermore in 
many countries mountainbiking is troubled by legally gray legislation, 
where it makes fun (Austria, Germany, parts of Italy, ). For street 
cycling routes are usally nice, but for mtbiking I couldn't care less of 
what is signposted. Additionally from legislation if you signpost a 
route, usually you are legally responsible for accidents if road 
conditions are bad. Hence noone want to signpost routes, because it 
would be too expensive to keep care of the ways and you have to pay 
expensive insurance (that is at least the case in Austria). So even 
places that make loads of advertisments for mountainbiking, will only 
officially signpost very few routes but put up descriptions of route 
proposals on their webpages.

As I laid out, highway=primary is also subjective only. But this 
subjectivity has manifested in most peoples minds.

My actual position on this is, I will write a wiki page, with a note to 
say bug off people against unofficial routes (because for mountainbiking 
they will in a matter of days be largely more than signposted routes), 
we will tag them route:unofficial:mtb=name and eveyone should give their 
favourite routes a hefty go. People are much more interested in nice 
routes than in difficulty, but according to tagwatch more than 25.000 
ways have mtb:scale information, compared with maybe 50 mtb routes.

If in OSM we really want to get in more mountainbikers, we have to start 
with unofficial routes. I will think about it for the night, and put up 
a wiki page tomorrow, put some notices on this on the big forums 
(hopefully they will get ~5000 pageviews, put them in my feedburner 
newsletter (1200 recipients) and as of next Friday render unofficial routes.

Once we have more than 500 unofficial routes (I'ld say this takes no 
more than 14 days), I will take out official routes form my maps, except 
if they are labelled with additional information to make sure they are 
not a trekking bike route labelled as mtb route.

If someone starts kicking them out, we could take out their submissions 
using a bot if they really feel like starting an edit war. It won't be 
much worse than in the Russian military discussion, will it?

I don't give a damn what Andy or some other people say. For me the only 
rule in OSM and that counts, is that as long as you're not destructing 
the work of others (like say you put in paragliding routes that make 
editing a pain for everyone else) or largely irrelevant data that 
clutters the database so it becomes unusable, just let them do it (hey, 
in Austria we likely still have 20% of data junk from plan.at, and I 
don't even want to start about the crap data in the USA). The amount of 
information is nothing compared to all the remarks by bots and editors 
or on imports. And the benefit of getting more Mtbikers is huge, as 
hikers will never map the outdoors thoroughly, they are simply too slow 
and don't get in deep enough to the backcountry. Also for them cost of 
maps is not so important, as they are usually fine with 1-2 maps for a 
week. A mountainbiker doing a transalp, on the other hand, either buys 
20-30 paper maps (not realistic), uses a copy of some Garmin maps he 
"finds" on the net (the forums about where to get Garmin maps have 
probably two to three times the traffic compared to forums with legal 
talk about Garmin GPS), downloads tracks from gpsies, gps-tour.info and 
Co, or and this is increasing steadily now, uses OSM maps (guessed 95% 
on Garmin GPS).

The big problem is, that there are very few mountainbikers on the ML or 
Wiki. Most of them got into OSM because they used the maps. One year ago 
the search for "Openstreetmap" in the huge French "Velo Vert" forum (I 
think it is amongst the top 5 sport online forums worldwide if judged by 
either traffic and registered users) and it turned out 1 single topic 
(and no the search was working, I rechecked with google. Mountainbikers 
got on very late, because 2 years ago it was openSTREETmap, and only 
once streets got covered, people really started to show interest to map 
the outdoors. Still nowadays we lack a lot compared to official maps 
that is needed for orientation, and their is ONE single point why we got 
so many mountainbikers. And that is specific information like mtb:scale 
AND autorouting

Re: [OSM-talk] Philosophy about Autorouting for Cyclists and new key class:bicycle

[Richard Mann]

I think routers would be better served if we identify good through
routes (ie the equivalent of highway=primary for motorists), and
record them as relations, perhaps
"network=lcn+status=unofficial+signposted=no". But Andy's a strict
objectivist, which rather gets in the way of documenting this sort of
approach.

Richard

2010/5/3 Felix Hartmann :
> ...

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