Re: [talk-au] Adding lane tags to major roads

[Andrew Harvey]

Overall I think it's a great idea.

Could you filter out ways that have lanes:forward and lanes:backward?
eg. https://maproulette.org/mr3/challenge/3375/task/6686753 which
shouldn't need a redundant lanes tag as you can just add them up.
On Fri, 7 Dec 2018 at 10:49, Martijn van Exel  wrote:
>
> Hi folks.
> I created MapRoulette challenge asking mappers to look at aerial images and 
> add lane tags to major roads.
> https://maproulette.org/mr3/browse/challenges/3375
> This particular one is for NSW but can easily be ‘cloned’ for other regions.
> I wanted to get your opinion on this — good / bad idea? Can it be improved? 
> Smaller regions? Any feedback welcome.
> Martijn
>
> PS the Overpass Query this is based on is:
>
> [timeout:190];
> area[name="New South Wales"]->.a;
> way[highway~"motorway|trunk|primary"][!lanes](area.a);
> out body geom qt;
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] Adding lane tags to major roads

[Martijn van Exel]

Hi folks.
I created MapRoulette challenge asking mappers to look at aerial images and add 
lane tags to major roads. 
https://maproulette.org/mr3/browse/challenges/3375 

This particular one is for NSW but can easily be ‘cloned’ for other regions.
I wanted to get your opinion on this — good / bad idea? Can it be improved? 
Smaller regions? Any feedback welcome.
Martijn

PS the Overpass Query this is based on is:

[timeout:190];
area[name="New South Wales"]->.a;
way[highway~"motorway|trunk|primary"][!lanes](area.a);
out body geom qt;___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Ferry Routes mapping in NSW

[Warin]

On 06/12/18 14:44, Andrew Harvey wrote:

On Mon, 26 Nov 2018 at 11:43, Sigurjón Gísli Rúnarsson
 wrote:

I have had some recent feedback regarding my changes to the ferry route paths 
in Sydney Harbour in August this year.  I basically changed the mapping from 
single way approach to relation approach.  The main reason for this change was 
so that the ferry route paths could be used for routing purposes, to reflect 
what is actually happening on the “ground” with these ferry route services.
The feedback I received from the OSM user is that these ferry routes should be 
mapped back to single way approach as having ways intersecting/branching 
between terminals/wharves should not be allowed. Rather, there should only be a 
single way between wharves.  At the moment some routing engines take turns in 
the middle of the harbour (example – now fixed in database) which I agree is 
not ideal.  I have tried to map the ways to avoid this as much as possible.

I feel that I’m following the wiki 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route=ferry with the relation approach. 
 At the time that I made the changes, I got only minimal (all positive) 
feedback regarding my approach to this.  But I can also understand the 
reasoning behind why the single way approach is preferred, as it looks better 
from a cartographic point of view on the standard OSM map tiles and gives a 
good overview of the ferry routes.

Unfortunately mapping with the single way approach does not give options for 
accurate routing based on the way the actual ferry services operate.

I'm in favour of using ferry route relations in Sydney Harbour, it
allows us to capture the full range of ferry services (including
private and public services) which share the same "ways" without the
issues from overlapping ways. As you've pointed out this is well
documented at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dferry

It seems the branching of ways in the open water that results from
mapping ferry routes as relations is causing issues like
https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot&route=-33.8711%2C151.2621%3B-33.7997%2C151.2857#map=14/-33.8421/151.2726
which is not a path that you can actually take.

I want to point out that railways have the same issue, where there are
switches like at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/143758897 a routing
engine which doesn't account for route relations will happily take
that switch even though there may be no public transport routes which
take it (it might only be there for non-scheduled services).
Ultimately a routing engine is only going to get so far without taking
into account the route relations and service timetable, so I don't
think that zigzag is a deal breaker.


The idea was brought forward to apply custom tagging to the “new” ways that 
have been mapped based on the relation approach.  These custom tags (i.e. 
route=[custom tag]) could then be used in conjunction with single way approach 
ways for routing based on services.

You're suggestion of using route=ferry_services on the way actually
makes sense and would fix the routing issue. On the other hand I see
the routing taking branches when route relations exist as a routing
engine issue, and something that could be addressed there. I think
that's probably a better solution, as the tagging remains the same, as
moving to route=ferry_services is a big breaking change that would be
hard to push through as a global tagging standard.

While we're talking about ferries,
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/201884898 has to be my favourite
ferry route in OSM: "route=ferry + description=Row yourself using
supplied boats".


For those not familiar with that 'ferry'.

There are 2 boats - one on either side.

You row one boat across with your gear.

Then you row back - towing the other boat.

You then row across with one boat to complete your crossing, while leaving a 
boat on each side.

To accomplish a simple crossing = rowing across 3 times.


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au