Re: [Talk-us] access road routing - two real world cases

[jfeldredge.com]

The  equivalent sign in the USA states either "No Thru Traffic" or "Local 
Traffic Only". While the standard written spelling is "through", the 
shortened spelling "Thru" is standard on road signs.


--
John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot 
drive out hate; only love can do that." -- Martin Luther King, Jr.




On January 1, 2015 5:01:07 PM Harald Kliems  wrote:


I don't think that this is a tagging but a routing problem. It seems easy
enough to me to program a router "do not use roads with access=private
unless they are the first or last segment of a route" or something along
those lines.

RE: access=destination. Not sure  what the convention is in the US, but in
Germany this is mainly used for public roads open only to people living or
having business to do on the road, usually to prevent through-traffic.
There is an official road sign for this
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anlieger#mediaviewer/File:Zusatzzeichen_1020-30.svg


 Harald.

On Thu Jan 01 2015 at 1:40:52 PM stevea  wrote:

> >i suppose OSM could use access=permissive for
> >the preferred route, but that usage doesn't match
> >well with the current language for permissive.
>
> Richard, I'm not sure this is a perfect solution, but it could work.
> What about using access=destination ("Only when travelling to this
> element...") on that segment where traffic should be "directed to" by
> a router, then adding a rule to the router to be sensitive to
> access=destination segments?  This would actually solve the problem
> and make the router even better than for just this exact case.
> However, while it might overload the semantics for
> access=destination, through careful implementation of the router
> rule, it could improve it.
>
> SteveA
> California
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>



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

Re: [Talk-us] access road routing - two real world cases

[stevea]

Harald Kliems  writes:
I don't think that this is a tagging but a routing problem. It seems 
easy enough to me to program a router "do not use roads with 
access=private unless they are the first or last segment of a route" 
or something along those lines.


RE: access=destination. Not sure  what the convention is in the US, 
but in Germany this is mainly used for public roads open only to 
people living or having business to do on the road, usually to 
prevent through-traffic. There is an official road sign for 
this http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anlieger#mediaviewer/File:Zusatzzeichen_1020-30.svg 



Right, Harald.  I agree that access=destination is quite useful as it 
has exactly that semantic meaning.  But it doesn't seem too far a 
stretch to ask it to enclose "if you MUST use (route to) this roadway 
to achieve your destination, go ahead and include it in your route" 
as well.


SteveA
California___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] access road routing - two real world cases

[Richard Welty]

On 1/1/15 6:00 PM, Harald Kliems wrote:
I don't think that this is a tagging but a routing problem. It seems 
easy enough to me to program a router "do not use roads with 
access=private unless they are the first or last segment of a route" 
or something along those lines.




well, it is an issue if there are multiple candidate roads marked
private but only one of them is actually correct. we can either
overload access=permissive or access=destination, or add a
new tag, but if we do none of these then we can't make this
distinction and the routers will lack sufficient guidance. this is
the biltmore estate case, where the roads are currently all marked
access=private (which is technically correct) and so OSM based
routers may make wrong choices.

richard

--
rwe...@averillpark.net
 Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting
 OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux
 Java - Web Applications - Search

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

Re: [Talk-us] access road routing - two real world cases

[Harald Kliems]

I don't think that this is a tagging but a routing problem. It seems easy
enough to me to program a router "do not use roads with access=private
unless they are the first or last segment of a route" or something along
those lines.

RE: access=destination. Not sure  what the convention is in the US, but in
Germany this is mainly used for public roads open only to people living or
having business to do on the road, usually to prevent through-traffic.
There is an official road sign for this
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anlieger#mediaviewer/File:Zusatzzeichen_1020-30.svg


 Harald.

On Thu Jan 01 2015 at 1:40:52 PM stevea  wrote:

> >i suppose OSM could use access=permissive for
> >the preferred route, but that usage doesn't match
> >well with the current language for permissive.
>
> Richard, I'm not sure this is a perfect solution, but it could work.
> What about using access=destination ("Only when travelling to this
> element...") on that segment where traffic should be "directed to" by
> a router, then adding a rule to the router to be sensitive to
> access=destination segments?  This would actually solve the problem
> and make the router even better than for just this exact case.
> However, while it might overload the semantics for
> access=destination, through careful implementation of the router
> rule, it could improve it.
>
> SteveA
> California
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Rail westerly (Dave Mansfield)

[Michael Patrick]

> What I'm not quite sure about are federal records such as FRA records (as
I believe Oak Ridge data are).  These would be covered under, say, a FOIA
request, and so are quite similar to the same nexus argument as state
records, only under federal law, not state law.

Generally, I have had very good experience with the National Labs and other
Federal Agencies by simply emailing them, explaing what OSM is, with a link
to the ODBL, and asking for a clarification. Depending on the data
consortium ( government / academic / commercial ), this may or may not be
possible. For instance Landscan ORNL is 'proprietary'.
http://web.ornl.gov/sci/landscan/landscan_faq.shtml#10

Just a note dealing with projections: There is a great service at
http://prj2epsg.org/search
I just pasted the '.prj' information into a text file with a 'prj
extension, uploaded it, and it gave me the equivalent ( or closest guess)
EPSG code. Then assign that CRS to the layer in QGIS ( or other GIS
software of choice).

Michael Patrick
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Routing on Ferries

[Clifford Snow]

On Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Darrell Fuhriman 
wrote:

> GTFS works fine for ferries already. Many do publish the data.


I just checked, Washington State Ferries does use GTFS [1]. I originally
posted this message because of a Scout note in OSM. My sense is the problem
is Scout's. I'm guessing Scout employees are all taking the day off. I'll
close the note with a comment that it is a scout problem.

http://www.gtfs-data-exchange.com/agency/washington-state-ferries/


-- 
@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] access road routing - two real world cases

[stevea]

i suppose OSM could use access=permissive for
the preferred route, but that usage doesn't match
well with the current language for permissive.


Richard, I'm not sure this is a perfect solution, but it could work. 
What about using access=destination ("Only when travelling to this 
element...") on that segment where traffic should be "directed to" by 
a router, then adding a rule to the router to be sensitive to 
access=destination segments?  This would actually solve the problem 
and make the router even better than for just this exact case. 
However, while it might overload the semantics for 
access=destination, through careful implementation of the router 
rule, it could improve it.


SteveA
California

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

Re: [Talk-us] Routing on Ferries

[Darrell Fuhriman]

GTFS works fine for ferries already. Many do publish the data. 

d. 

> On Jan 1, 2015, at 10:55, Clifford Snow  wrote:
> 
> 
> I agree. However, it would be nice to have it show the route. Somehow we can 
> route via bus using GTFS. I wonder if ferry routes have a similar spec?
> 
> 

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

Re: [Talk-us] Routing on Ferries

[Richard Welty]

On 1/1/15 1:55 PM, Clifford Snow wrote:


On Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 10:23 AM, Natfoot > wrote:


The inherent problem with ferry routes is that they have a
schedule.  Routers can't then tell their users how long it is
going to take without that data.

As far as I know we don't have schedule capability within OSM and
it is something that the routers have not pulled not even the big
G. The big G is listing the route as being "Mon-Sun: 7 AM–11:30 PM
· every 60 min"  This is a safe comment even though the schedules
change seasonally


I agree. However, it would be nice to have it show the route. Somehow 
we can route via bus using GTFS. I wonder if ferry routes have a 
similar spec?



and there are places (for example, Ocracoke Island on the outer banks)
which are only accessible via ferry and thus can't be routed to by apps
that don't handle ferries.

richard

--
rwe...@averillpark.net
 Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting
 OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux
 Java - Web Applications - Search

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

Re: [Talk-us] Routing on Ferries

[Clifford Snow]

On Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 10:23 AM, Natfoot  wrote:

> The inherent problem with ferry routes is that they have a schedule.
> Routers can't then tell their users how long it is going to take without
> that data.
>
> As far as I know we don't have schedule capability within OSM and it is
> something that the routers have not pulled not even the big G. The big G is
> listing the route as being "Mon-Sun: 7 AM–11:30 PM · every 60 min"  This
> is a safe comment even though the schedules change seasonally
>

I agree. However, it would be nice to have it show the route. Somehow we
can route via bus using GTFS. I wonder if ferry routes have a similar spec?

The Scout app doesn't appear to use ferries, although I need to check
options. There may be a flag preset not to use ferries.


-- 
@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Routing on Ferries

[Natfoot]

The inherent problem with ferry routes is that they have a schedule.
Routers can't then tell their users how long it is going to take without
that data.

As far as I know we don't have schedule capability within OSM and it is
something that the routers have not pulled not even the big G. The big G is
listing the route as being "Mon-Sun: 7 AM–11:30 PM · every 60 min"  This is
a safe comment even though the schedules change seasonally.

Nathan P
email: natf...@gmail.com

On Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 8:19 AM, Clifford Snow 
wrote:

>
> On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 11:18 PM, Natfoot  wrote:
>
>> When talking to the Scout team this summer it was mentioned as an issue.
>> Also Scout wont route across access roads and if there is an access road
>> leading up to the dock/portal then no route. you will notice that it is
>> listed as primary road in Edmonds and Kingston.
>
>
> It would appear that the router should use a ferry route. However, a check
> of both osrm and mapquest would indicate otherwise. The problem is I don't
> know if that is a routing engine problem, i.e. it won't use a ferry route,
> or a tagging problem.
>
> The tests were done using http://jsrouting.apis.dev.openstreetmap.org/
>
> Clifford
>
>
> --
> @osm_seattle
> osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
> OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] access road routing - two real world cases

[Richard Welty]

here are two real world cases that are on my mind:

1) access to the Biltmore estate, Asheville NC
we were down in the area over Christmas, and
toured the mansion on the 24th. we tried using
the Skobbler app on my iPhone for routing, and
got led seriously astray. the tagging needs to be
improved, but it's unclear what the correction
should be under the scheme as it exists now.

the situation is that the land for the state is quite
large, and there is more than one road in; however,
only one road is appropriate for tourists. all the
roads in are gated and private. but if you tag them
all access=private, then the router has no way to
tell what the correct road to use is. we were led to
a gate on the backside of the property that was
clearly labeled as not being for access to the
complex. it seems to be a common problem in
the GPS era as there was a sign directing us to
the correct entrance.

i suppose OSM could use access=permissive for
the preferred route, but that usage doesn't match
well with the current language for permissive.

2) access road to Palmer Motorsports Park.
this is a little theoretical since Palmer won't open for
business until mid summer, but Palmer has an access
road which will probably have some sort of security on
it (and thus have access=private). there is a public road
into a wildlife area adjacent to the track, which i've
seen OSRM use for the endpoint, ignoring the actual track
access road. again, some sort of tagging tweak seems
needed if we want routers to do the right thing. deliberately
not using service roads when they are actually the correct
roads to use is a problem.

richard

--
rwe...@averillpark.net
 Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting
 OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux
 Java - Web Applications - Search


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

Re: [Talk-us] Routing on Ferries

[Richard Welty]

On 1/1/15 12:13 PM, Harald Kliems wrote:
Graphhopper doesn't have the problem. It could be that other routers 
are using outdated data that did indeed have a tagging problem.


https://graphhopper.com/maps/?point=47.811656%2C-122.379627&point=47.809696%2C-122.528286&layer=Lyrk


in the long run, we should consider whether there should
be tagging extensions to cover access routes that should be
routed, or perhaps a more nuanced approach to access roads
from routers.

i have a couple of recent cases where OSM based routing has
produced bad results because of these sorts of issues; some
require tagging extensions and others might be addressed
by adding specific criteria to routers as to when service roads
are permissible (e.g. ferry approaches or at route endpoints)

richard

--
rwe...@averillpark.net
 Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting
 OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux
 Java - Web Applications - Search

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

Re: [Talk-us] Routing on Ferries

[Harald Kliems]

Graphhopper doesn't have the problem. It could be that other routers are
using outdated data that did indeed have a tagging problem.


https://graphhopper.com/maps/?point=47.811656%2C-122.379627&point=47.809696%2C-122.528286&layer=Lyrk

 Harald.

On Thu Jan 01 2015 at 10:20:45 AM Clifford Snow 
wrote:

>
> On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 11:18 PM, Natfoot  wrote:
>
>> When talking to the Scout team this summer it was mentioned as an issue.
>> Also Scout wont route across access roads and if there is an access road
>> leading up to the dock/portal then no route. you will notice that it is
>> listed as primary road in Edmonds and Kingston.
>
>
> It would appear that the router should use a ferry route. However, a check
> of both osrm and mapquest would indicate otherwise. The problem is I don't
> know if that is a routing engine problem, i.e. it won't use a ferry route,
> or a tagging problem.
>
> The tests were done using http://jsrouting.apis.dev.openstreetmap.org/
>
> Clifford
>
>
> --
> @osm_seattle
> osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
> OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
>  ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] Whole-US Garmin Map update - 2014-12-30

[Dave Hansen]

These are based off of Lambertus's work here:

http://garmin.openstreetmap.nl

If you have questions or comments about these maps, please feel
free to ask.  However, please do not send me private mail.  The
odds are, someone else will have the same questions, and by
asking on the talk-us@ list, others can benefit.

Downloads:

http://daveh.dev.openstreetmap.org/garmin/Lambertus/2014-12-30

Map to visualize what each file contains:


http://daveh.dev.openstreetmap.org/garmin/Lambertus/2014-12-30/kml/kml.html


FAQ



Why did you do this?

I wrote scripts to joined them myself to lessen the impact
of doing a large join on Lambertus's server.  I've also
cut them in large longitude swaths that should fit conveniently
on removable media.  

http://daveh.dev.openstreetmap.org/garmin/Lambertus/2014-12-30

Can or should I seed the torrents?

Yes!!  If you use the .torrent files, please seed.  That web
server is in the UK, and it helps to have some peers on this
side of the Atlantic.

Why is my map missing small rectangular areas?

There have been some missing tiles from Lambertus's map (the
red rectangles),  I don't see any at the moment, so you may
want to update if you had issues with the last set.

Why can I not copy the large files to my new SD card?

If you buy a new card (especially SDHC), some are FAT16 from
the factory.  I had to reformat it to let me create a >2GB
file.

Does your map cover Mexico/Canada?

Yes!!  I have, for the purposes of this map, annexed Ontario
in to the USA.  Some areas of North America that are close
to the US also just happen to get pulled in to these maps.
This might not happen forever, and if you would like your
non-US area to get included, let me know. 

-- Dave


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

Re: [Talk-us] Routing on Ferries

[Clifford Snow]

On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 11:18 PM, Natfoot  wrote:

> When talking to the Scout team this summer it was mentioned as an issue.
> Also Scout wont route across access roads and if there is an access road
> leading up to the dock/portal then no route. you will notice that it is
> listed as primary road in Edmonds and Kingston.


It would appear that the router should use a ferry route. However, a check
of both osrm and mapquest would indicate otherwise. The problem is I don't
know if that is a routing engine problem, i.e. it won't use a ferry route,
or a tagging problem.

The tests were done using http://jsrouting.apis.dev.openstreetmap.org/

Clifford


-- 
@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us