Re: [Talk-us] routing tags used by actual routing applications
How would you classify two ruts, with some fist-sized rocks dumped into the worst-eroded points, leading to the base of a billboard next to a highway? Technically it is a service road, used when the billboard is maintained, but I tagged it as a track due to its condition. Only a high-ground-clearance, four-wheel drive vehicle would be able to use it. This is on public land, undeveloped except for a paved footpath on part of it, due to frequent flooding. On July 3, 2014 11:37:30 AM CDT, Brad Neuhauser wrote: > I think highway=service could be public or private, just a matter of > if it > is "used to access a certain building / facility" like Martin said. > Some > public examples could be road to a public parking lot, driveway in/out > of > fire station, road leading to a public works facility. > > > On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Kevin Broderick > > wrote: > > > Highway=service implies a private road, though; if a public road > dead-ends > > at a single building or facility, it should be =residential or > > =unclassified, right? > > > > The tracktype= key is also not really applicable to many of the > > unmaintained roads around here, at least as described on the wiki. > The > > description implies that a track is a continuum from a maintained > roadway > > to a virtually invisible path across a field. The unmaintained roads > in > > this part of the country are usually old roadways that were > established > > before modern engineering standards; many of them go up and down the > fall > > line and have waterbars, washouts, rock ledges, or all of the above. > For > > example: > > > > > > > https://scontent-a-lga.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/t31.0-8/1267970_716253801218_1989759584_o.jpg > > > > > https://scontent-a-lga.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfa1/t31.0-8/1266483_716253736348_406630391_o.jpg > > > > > https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/t31.0-8/1264969_716254075668_897288595_o.jpg > > > > > https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/t31.0-8/10317804_767096626788_7562385056086790114_o.jpg > > > > All of these photos are unmaintained roads in Vermont. The last one > is > > probably reasonable for a high-clearance, AWD car (e.g. Subaru) in > the > > hands of a competent driver, and definitely should be passable by a > skilled > > driver in a 4x4 pickup or Jeep. The other three would probably > require a > > modified 4x4 and the right skillset. They are also legal > right-of-ways, so > > clearly access=yes for all vehicle types (even though I wouldn't > want to > > get routed down one of those unknowingly). > > > > I've been using the smoothness key to provide additional data on > such > > tracks, which I realize is a universally agreed solution, but it's > the best > > one I've found to date; I'd be open to further suggestions. > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 11:55 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer < > > dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> > >> 2014-07-03 17:36 GMT+02:00 Brad Neuhauser > : > >> > >> Just trying to process this: wouldn't a tracktype 1 be tagged as > >>> unclassified or residential anyway? Or to ask a different way, > assuming > >>> that roads with houses should be tagged as residential, when > should one tag > >>> a sub-tertiary road as track vs. using unclassified? > >>> > >> > >> > >> You'd always tag it as unclassified, unless it is not a connection > road > >> and is used only for agricultural / forestry purposes. If it is not > a > >> connection road but used to access a certain building / facility, > use > >> service. > >> > >> E.g. this is clearly a track: http://binged.it/1odgrTZ > >> or this: http://binged.it/1j0zEud > >> > >> in case of doubt I'd put unclassified ;-) > >> > >> cheers, > >> Martin > >> > >> ___ > >> Talk-us mailing list > >> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > Kevin Broderick > > k...@kevinbroderick.com > > > > ___ > > 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 -- 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." Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] routing tags used by actual routing applications
Thanks for the input, Jason and others. I will work on this and should have something up next week. On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Jason Remillard wrote: > Hi Martijn, > > I think it would be fine to put a scout section into the routing tag page. > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing > > It should not be much text to describe what tags are used. > > Also, following the rest of this thread, the track/surface/etc tagging > situation is very confusing. > > Thanks > Jason > > > > > On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 2:40 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 12:15 PM, Jason Remillard >> wrote: >>> Playing around with scout, I have discovered that it will not route >>> over tracks, cycleways, and paths unless you are in pedestrian mode. >>> It ignores access=destination, and the surface tag. >> >> Scout does not route cars over cycleways and paths for reasons that I >> think should be obvious. Tracks are not excluded but have a high cost >> (low assigned speed) so they will not typically get routed across if >> there's a more convenient option available. >> >> We do take into account surface= and use it to adjust edge weight. >> >> Not entirely sure about access=destination, will need to check! >> >> Like I said, I am compiling information to put on the OSM wiki on how >> we use tags / elements for Scout. Where should it go? As a subpage of >> the 'tags used for routing' page mentioned elsewhere? >> >> -- >> Martijn van Exel >> OSM data specialist >> Telenav >> http://www.osm.org/user/mvexel >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Mvexel >> http://hdyc.neis-one.org/?mvexel > > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us -- -- Martijn van Exel OSM data specialist Telenav http://www.osm.org/user/mvexel http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Mvexel http://hdyc.neis-one.org/?mvexel ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] routing tags used by actual routing applications
Hi Martijn, I think it would be fine to put a scout section into the routing tag page. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing It should not be much text to describe what tags are used. Also, following the rest of this thread, the track/surface/etc tagging situation is very confusing. Thanks Jason On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 2:40 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote: > On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 12:15 PM, Jason Remillard > wrote: >> Playing around with scout, I have discovered that it will not route >> over tracks, cycleways, and paths unless you are in pedestrian mode. >> It ignores access=destination, and the surface tag. > > Scout does not route cars over cycleways and paths for reasons that I > think should be obvious. Tracks are not excluded but have a high cost > (low assigned speed) so they will not typically get routed across if > there's a more convenient option available. > > We do take into account surface= and use it to adjust edge weight. > > Not entirely sure about access=destination, will need to check! > > Like I said, I am compiling information to put on the OSM wiki on how > we use tags / elements for Scout. Where should it go? As a subpage of > the 'tags used for routing' page mentioned elsewhere? > > -- > Martijn van Exel > OSM data specialist > Telenav > http://www.osm.org/user/mvexel > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Mvexel > http://hdyc.neis-one.org/?mvexel ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] routing tags used by actual routing applications
On 7/3/14 2:32 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote: > On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 10:26 AM, Kevin Broderick > wrote: >> Highway=service implies a private road, though; > > Not always, service=alley can be public, can't they? > i'd say that most alleys i see are public. for obvious reasons they are little used except by local traffic, but they're public. richard -- rwe...@averillpark.net Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux Java - Web Applications - Search signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] routing tags used by actual routing applications
On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 12:15 PM, Jason Remillard wrote: > Playing around with scout, I have discovered that it will not route > over tracks, cycleways, and paths unless you are in pedestrian mode. > It ignores access=destination, and the surface tag. Scout does not route cars over cycleways and paths for reasons that I think should be obvious. Tracks are not excluded but have a high cost (low assigned speed) so they will not typically get routed across if there's a more convenient option available. We do take into account surface= and use it to adjust edge weight. Not entirely sure about access=destination, will need to check! Like I said, I am compiling information to put on the OSM wiki on how we use tags / elements for Scout. Where should it go? As a subpage of the 'tags used for routing' page mentioned elsewhere? -- Martijn van Exel OSM data specialist Telenav http://www.osm.org/user/mvexel http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Mvexel http://hdyc.neis-one.org/?mvexel ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] routing tags used by actual routing applications
On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 10:26 AM, Kevin Broderick wrote: > Highway=service implies a private road, though; Not always, service=alley can be public, can't they? -- Martijn van Exel http://oegeo.wordpress.com/ http://openstreetmap.us/ ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] routing tags used by actual routing applications
Not necessarily. The case I tend to run into, these are extremely rural roads suitable only as a last resort (or for recreational rat runs across The Big Empty) and tend to be prone to irregular maintenance, unevenly graded, do not have snow removal, may have fords, variable in width and tend to be prone to flooding. That said, while many may be passable for quite a distance in a low sedan at the speed limit (usually 45), this is by no means a reliable assumption even under ideal conditions. On Jul 3, 2014 10:37 AM, "Brad Neuhauser" wrote: > Just trying to process this: wouldn't a tracktype 1 be tagged as > unclassified or residential anyway? Or to ask a different way, assuming > that roads with houses should be tagged as residential, when should one tag > a sub-tertiary road as track vs. using unclassified? > > > On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: > >> >> On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 5:32 PM, Paul Norman wrote: >> >>> For tracks, tracktype indicates condition, and tracktype1 should be >>> drivable by any family sedan as it may even be paved. >> >> >> This. >> >> ___ >> 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] routing tags used by actual routing applications
2014-07-03 18:26 GMT+02:00 Kevin Broderick : > Highway=service implies a private road, though; AFAIK only some service like service=driveway are generally private=yes, while parking _aisle, alley or generic service might be public roads. cheers, Martin ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] routing tags used by actual routing applications
I think highway=service could be public or private, just a matter of if it is "used to access a certain building / facility" like Martin said. Some public examples could be road to a public parking lot, driveway in/out of fire station, road leading to a public works facility. On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Kevin Broderick wrote: > Highway=service implies a private road, though; if a public road dead-ends > at a single building or facility, it should be =residential or > =unclassified, right? > > The tracktype= key is also not really applicable to many of the > unmaintained roads around here, at least as described on the wiki. The > description implies that a track is a continuum from a maintained roadway > to a virtually invisible path across a field. The unmaintained roads in > this part of the country are usually old roadways that were established > before modern engineering standards; many of them go up and down the fall > line and have waterbars, washouts, rock ledges, or all of the above. For > example: > > > https://scontent-a-lga.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/t31.0-8/1267970_716253801218_1989759584_o.jpg > > https://scontent-a-lga.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfa1/t31.0-8/1266483_716253736348_406630391_o.jpg > > https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/t31.0-8/1264969_716254075668_897288595_o.jpg > > https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/t31.0-8/10317804_767096626788_7562385056086790114_o.jpg > > All of these photos are unmaintained roads in Vermont. The last one is > probably reasonable for a high-clearance, AWD car (e.g. Subaru) in the > hands of a competent driver, and definitely should be passable by a skilled > driver in a 4x4 pickup or Jeep. The other three would probably require a > modified 4x4 and the right skillset. They are also legal right-of-ways, so > clearly access=yes for all vehicle types (even though I wouldn't want to > get routed down one of those unknowingly). > > I've been using the smoothness key to provide additional data on such > tracks, which I realize is a universally agreed solution, but it's the best > one I've found to date; I'd be open to further suggestions. > > > On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 11:55 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer < > dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> 2014-07-03 17:36 GMT+02:00 Brad Neuhauser : >> >> Just trying to process this: wouldn't a tracktype 1 be tagged as >>> unclassified or residential anyway? Or to ask a different way, assuming >>> that roads with houses should be tagged as residential, when should one tag >>> a sub-tertiary road as track vs. using unclassified? >>> >> >> >> You'd always tag it as unclassified, unless it is not a connection road >> and is used only for agricultural / forestry purposes. If it is not a >> connection road but used to access a certain building / facility, use >> service. >> >> E.g. this is clearly a track: http://binged.it/1odgrTZ >> or this: http://binged.it/1j0zEud >> >> in case of doubt I'd put unclassified ;-) >> >> cheers, >> Martin >> >> ___ >> Talk-us mailing list >> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us >> >> > > > -- > Kevin Broderick > k...@kevinbroderick.com > > ___ > 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] routing tags used by actual routing applications
Highway=service implies a private road, though; if a public road dead-ends at a single building or facility, it should be =residential or =unclassified, right? The tracktype= key is also not really applicable to many of the unmaintained roads around here, at least as described on the wiki. The description implies that a track is a continuum from a maintained roadway to a virtually invisible path across a field. The unmaintained roads in this part of the country are usually old roadways that were established before modern engineering standards; many of them go up and down the fall line and have waterbars, washouts, rock ledges, or all of the above. For example: https://scontent-a-lga.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/t31.0-8/1267970_716253801218_1989759584_o.jpg https://scontent-a-lga.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfa1/t31.0-8/1266483_716253736348_406630391_o.jpg https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/t31.0-8/1264969_716254075668_897288595_o.jpg https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/t31.0-8/10317804_767096626788_7562385056086790114_o.jpg All of these photos are unmaintained roads in Vermont. The last one is probably reasonable for a high-clearance, AWD car (e.g. Subaru) in the hands of a competent driver, and definitely should be passable by a skilled driver in a 4x4 pickup or Jeep. The other three would probably require a modified 4x4 and the right skillset. They are also legal right-of-ways, so clearly access=yes for all vehicle types (even though I wouldn't want to get routed down one of those unknowingly). I've been using the smoothness key to provide additional data on such tracks, which I realize is a universally agreed solution, but it's the best one I've found to date; I'd be open to further suggestions. On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 11:55 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > 2014-07-03 17:36 GMT+02:00 Brad Neuhauser : > > Just trying to process this: wouldn't a tracktype 1 be tagged as >> unclassified or residential anyway? Or to ask a different way, assuming >> that roads with houses should be tagged as residential, when should one tag >> a sub-tertiary road as track vs. using unclassified? >> > > > You'd always tag it as unclassified, unless it is not a connection road > and is used only for agricultural / forestry purposes. If it is not a > connection road but used to access a certain building / facility, use > service. > > E.g. this is clearly a track: http://binged.it/1odgrTZ > or this: http://binged.it/1j0zEud > > in case of doubt I'd put unclassified ;-) > > cheers, > Martin > > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > > -- Kevin Broderick k...@kevinbroderick.com ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] routing tags used by actual routing applications
2014-07-03 17:36 GMT+02:00 Brad Neuhauser : > Just trying to process this: wouldn't a tracktype 1 be tagged as > unclassified or residential anyway? Or to ask a different way, assuming > that roads with houses should be tagged as residential, when should one tag > a sub-tertiary road as track vs. using unclassified? > You'd always tag it as unclassified, unless it is not a connection road and is used only for agricultural / forestry purposes. If it is not a connection road but used to access a certain building / facility, use service. E.g. this is clearly a track: http://binged.it/1odgrTZ or this: http://binged.it/1j0zEud in case of doubt I'd put unclassified ;-) cheers, Martin ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] routing tags used by actual routing applications
Just trying to process this: wouldn't a tracktype 1 be tagged as unclassified or residential anyway? Or to ask a different way, assuming that roads with houses should be tagged as residential, when should one tag a sub-tertiary road as track vs. using unclassified? On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 5:32 PM, Paul Norman wrote: > >> For tracks, tracktype indicates condition, and tracktype1 should be >> drivable by any family sedan as it may even be paved. > > > This. > > ___ > 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] routing tags used by actual routing applications
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 5:32 PM, Paul Norman wrote: > For tracks, tracktype indicates condition, and tracktype1 should be > drivable by any family sedan as it may even be paved. This. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] routing tags used by actual routing applications
On 2014-07-02 8:04 AM, Tod Fitch wrote: The western US is also full of unpaved roads. When I've mapped them my criteria for deciding between highway=track and highway=unclassified or highway=residential has been twofold: 1) Could a family sedan reasonably be expected to be able to use the road? And 2) Is it wide enough for two vehicles to pass one another? If it passes both those tests then then I use either unclassified or residential depending on the number of houses served on it. If it fails either test, then I use track. If houses are on it is probably a better test than condition or width. There are tertiary and secondary roads which are questionable for family sedans. For tracks, tracktype indicates condition, and tracktype1 should be drivable by any family sedan as it may even be paved. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] routing tags used by actual routing applications
The western US is also full of unpaved roads. When I've mapped them my criteria
for deciding between highway=track and highway=unclassified or
highway=residential has been twofold: 1) Could a family sedan reasonably be
expected to be able to use the road? And 2) Is it wide enough for two vehicles
to pass one another? If it passes both those tests then then I use either
unclassified or residential depending on the number of houses served on it. If
it fails either test, then I use track.
In routing I suspect that the vast majority of real world users will be
expecting a fast and smooth route to take in the family car so routing software
should probably default to avoiding tracks. But there are other significant use
cases: Mountain bikes would probably love to be routed over tracks, road bikes
would probably prefer paved bike lanes, trucking concerns will be interested in
having the routing software take account of HGV restrictions, etc.
In compiling the best practices tags used for routing, it may be a good idea to
break the page into those different usages and for each usage list the tags
used by the various routers.
On Jul 2, 2014, at 7:07 AM, Kevin Broderick wrote:
> IMO (based on both the wiki and what I've seen on the map), highway=track
> implies something that is not reasonably drivable by normal passenger cars at
> a normal rate of travel. In Vermont, we have a whole lot of unpaved roads
> that are perfectly fine at 35-45 MPH (well, except for mud season); those
> seem to fit highway=unclassified or highway=residential better than
> highway=track.
>
> The routing discussion does get into a bit of sticky area that applies at
> least to Vermont, New Hampshire and Massachusetts—all three have old roadways
> that remain legal right-of-ways but that are not town-maintained. Some are
> privately maintained to normal road standards, others are maintained to some
> lesser standard (e.g. "So I can get my pickup up to camp"), others have very
> little to no ongoing maintenance but get traveled by 4x4s and dual-sport
> motorcycles (whose operators are likely to clear deadfall but not to replace
> washed-out culverts, for example), and others have reverted to forest or may
> even have been "paper roads" that were plotted with inadequate knowledge of
> topography (up cliffs, etc.). According to the wiki, those should be tagged
> motor_vehicle=yes because a road-legal vehicle is *legally* allowed to travel
> them ("Access values are used to describe the legal access for highway=*s"),
> but I sure as heck don't want to get routed down some of them when driving my
> Taurus. I may very well want to get routed down them while riding my
> dual-sport motorcycle or if I was out in a 4x4 truck.
>
> As I've been updating data in Vermont, I've been relabeling
> highway=unclassified or highway=residential to highway=track if it would seem
> to be an unpleasant surprise while operating said Taurus, and I've been using
> the somewhat debated smoothness= tag to add further data where possible. I've
> also been adding in missing sections of those unmaintained right-of-ways,
> usually as highway=track, that were not on the TIGER imports.
>
> IMO, the default expected behavior of a routing system should be to avoid
> highway=track unless specifically encouraged to do so by user input (whether
> by selecting a particular activity or by the user putting a waypoint on a
> track), and we should encourage renderers to clearly distinguish tracks from
> roads.
>
> Also IMO, any track that is at all visible on the ground and congruent with a
> legal, public right-of-way, ought to be on the map. However, we do need to
> tag them appropriately so that routing and rendering systems can distinguish
> those ways that are legal for motor vehicles but physically impassible for
> most from those that are legal and readily passable (and, where possible,
> also distinguish the converse—those that are passable but not legal ROW).
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 9:11 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
> I would expect tracks to be in play except when explicitly excluding unpaved
> roads, barring surface tags to the contrary, otherwise as a last resort.
> Much of the US doesn't pave county roads, yet they're often packed and graded
> to the point someone with a low slung sedan can safely do 45 on them.
>
> On Jul 1, 2014 3:37 PM, "Martin Koppenhoefer" wrote:
>
>
> > Il giorno 01/lug/2014, alle ore 23:15, Jason Remillard
> > ha scritto:
> >
> > For example, scout does
> > not route over highway=tracks, unless you are in pedestrian mode. It
> > seems like a reasonable decision, perhaps all of the routers do this,
>
>
> no, some routers do use tracks for car routing (I'd expect a router to use
> tracks for cars, but only as a last resort when there are no alternatives)
>
> In your original post you mentioned path and cycleway, those should indeed
> not route cars
>
>
> > but the wiki documentati
Re: [Talk-us] routing tags used by actual routing applications
2014-07-02 16:07 GMT+02:00 Kevin Broderick : > IMO (based on both the wiki and what I've seen on the map), highway=track > implies something that is not reasonably drivable by normal passenger cars > at a normal rate of travel. Actually this will depend on the setting, in Germany for instance, a "track" is a legal class for a way that is legally not a road, but the surface might be very good (asphalt, smooth) according to the region in which it is. The reason for a track to be there is agricultural (or forestry) use, so farmers will use them to access their fields. But they are often also shortcuts for locals. You won't use them for long distance travel, obviously, but if you have to choose between 1-2 km of track or 10 km of primary you'll probably choose the track. On the other hand, many tracks are nowadays excluding regular motorized traffic with signs (in osm there will be access-restrictions, so this is not a reason to exclude them generally form routing). Please remember that tracks are further sub-classed with the tag "tracktype", where grade1 is a nice smoothly paved track, and down to grade3 there should be no problem to use them with a regular car at medium speeds. I agree with you, if in doubt whether something is a track or an unclassified road, choose the road. If it is a part of the road network, it will never be a track. cheers, Martin ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] routing tags used by actual routing applications
IMO (based on both the wiki and what I've seen on the map), highway=track
implies something that is not reasonably drivable by normal passenger cars
at a normal rate of travel. In Vermont, we have a whole lot of unpaved
roads that are perfectly fine at 35-45 MPH (well, except for mud season);
those seem to fit highway=unclassified or highway=residential better than
highway=track.
The routing discussion does get into a bit of sticky area that applies at
least to Vermont, New Hampshire and Massachusetts—all three have old
roadways that remain legal right-of-ways but that are not town-maintained.
Some are privately maintained to normal road standards, others are
maintained to some lesser standard (e.g. "So I can get my pickup up to
camp"), others have very little to no ongoing maintenance but get traveled
by 4x4s and dual-sport motorcycles (whose operators are likely to clear
deadfall but not to replace washed-out culverts, for example), and others
have reverted to forest or may even have been "paper roads" that were
plotted with inadequate knowledge of topography (up cliffs, etc.).
According to the wiki, those should be tagged motor_vehicle=yes because a
road-legal vehicle is *legally* allowed to travel them ("*Access values* are
used to describe the *legal* access for highway
=*s"), but I sure as heck
don't want to get routed down some of them when driving my Taurus. I may
very well want to get routed down them while riding my dual-sport
motorcycle or if I was out in a 4x4 truck.
As I've been updating data in Vermont, I've been relabeling
highway=unclassified or highway=residential to highway=track if it would
seem to be an unpleasant surprise while operating said Taurus, and I've
been using the somewhat debated smoothness= tag to add further data where
possible. I've also been adding in missing sections of those unmaintained
right-of-ways, usually as highway=track, that were not on the TIGER imports.
IMO, the default expected behavior of a routing system should be to avoid
highway=track unless specifically encouraged to do so by user input
(whether by selecting a particular activity or by the user putting a
waypoint on a track), and we should encourage renderers to clearly
distinguish tracks from roads.
Also IMO, any track that is at all visible on the ground and congruent with
a legal, public right-of-way, ought to be on the map. However, we do need
to tag them appropriately so that routing and rendering systems can
distinguish those ways that are legal for motor vehicles but physically
impassible for most from those that are legal and readily passable (and,
where possible, also distinguish the converse—those that are passable but
not legal ROW).
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 9:11 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
> I would expect tracks to be in play except when explicitly excluding
> unpaved roads, barring surface tags to the contrary, otherwise as a last
> resort. Much of the US doesn't pave county roads, yet they're often packed
> and graded to the point someone with a low slung sedan can safely do 45 on
> them.
> On Jul 1, 2014 3:37 PM, "Martin Koppenhoefer"
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> > Il giorno 01/lug/2014, alle ore 23:15, Jason Remillard <
>> remillard.ja...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
>> >
>> > For example, scout does
>> > not route over highway=tracks, unless you are in pedestrian mode. It
>> > seems like a reasonable decision, perhaps all of the routers do this,
>>
>>
>> no, some routers do use tracks for car routing (I'd expect a router to
>> use tracks for cars, but only as a last resort when there are no
>> alternatives)
>>
>> In your original post you mentioned path and cycleway, those should
>> indeed not route cars
>>
>>
>> > but the wiki documentation says nothing of the sort, and it surprised
>> > me.
>>
>>
>> I'd file a bug at scout and see what they respond, you should definitely
>> not adapt osm data based on one router
>>
>>
>> cheers,
>> Martin
>> ___
>> 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
>
>
--
Kevin Broderick
k...@kevinbroderick.com
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] routing tags used by actual routing applications
I would expect tracks to be in play except when explicitly excluding unpaved roads, barring surface tags to the contrary, otherwise as a last resort. Much of the US doesn't pave county roads, yet they're often packed and graded to the point someone with a low slung sedan can safely do 45 on them. On Jul 1, 2014 3:37 PM, "Martin Koppenhoefer" wrote: > > > > Il giorno 01/lug/2014, alle ore 23:15, Jason Remillard < > remillard.ja...@gmail.com> ha scritto: > > > > For example, scout does > > not route over highway=tracks, unless you are in pedestrian mode. It > > seems like a reasonable decision, perhaps all of the routers do this, > > > no, some routers do use tracks for car routing (I'd expect a router to use > tracks for cars, but only as a last resort when there are no alternatives) > > In your original post you mentioned path and cycleway, those should indeed > not route cars > > > > but the wiki documentation says nothing of the sort, and it surprised > > me. > > > I'd file a bug at scout and see what they respond, you should definitely > not adapt osm data based on one router > > cheers, > Martin > ___ > 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] routing tags used by actual routing applications
> > From: Jason Remillard > ... > Would it be possible for somebody from telenav/scout/skobbler to > update this page, or make a new wiki page describing what tagging is > actually used to determine if a way is considered for a route? > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing > ... > Interesting that this page does talk about OSM routing only for cars. It does not even mention routing for cyclists, which is used in practice both offline on route planning tools like bikeroutetoaster.com and naviki.org as in real-time routing on Garmin portable devices like edge Toyuring and edge 1000 (both with OSM maps) and more generally many portable Garmin devices are used with OSM maps (velomap.org; openmtbmap.org; garmin.openstreetmap.nl ) We are discussing routing for cyclists at the moment on [talk-de] and I compiled in my post ( https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-de/2014-July/108722.html) a preliminary list of map elements that could/should be used for cycle routing. I think we should start some more systematic work in this direction, i.e compile OSM_tags_for_car_routing and OSM_tags_for_bicycle_routing and start talking to the routing "makers" about what we users want. Volker (Padova, Italy) ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] routing tags used by actual routing applications
> Il giorno 02/lug/2014, alle ore 01:36, Martijn van Exel ha > scritto: > > Added a comment to the discussion section of that page as well: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:OSM_tags_for_routing#Authority.3F I agree, maybe the best would be to delete this page? It contains some really old deprecated concepts like is_in and nothing unique that isn't documented elsewhere, AFAICS cheers, Martin ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] routing tags used by actual routing applications
On 7/1/2014 7:18 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote: With that said I agree fully that having a resource that*is* trustworthy (containing references to which router supports certain conventions) is becoming increasingly important I would also find this very helpful - not to tag for a particular router but to know which tags actually describe a way properly for routers to interpret. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] routing tags used by actual routing applications
Added a comment to the discussion section of that page as well: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:OSM_tags_for_routing#Authority.3F On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 5:23 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote: > I don't know how this keeps happening, but I responded with my osm.us > account again. I sincerely apologize. Of course, I am not speaking as > the board president on matters like these. > > Martijn > > On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 5:18 PM, Martijn van Exel > wrote: >> Hi Jason, >> >> I hadn't seen that page for a while, thank you for reminding me. I >> don't really trust that page to be reliable, because it does not >> contain any concrete references to applications / services actually >> adhering to these conventions. >> >> With that said I agree fully that having a resource that *is* >> trustworthy (containing references to which router supports certain >> conventions) is becoming increasingly important - especially now that >> we're getting close to getting routing / directions support on >> osm.org. I will make it a priority to see about sharing the >> conventions we support, and working with other major nav / directions >> providers to discuss optimal support for less well defined tags like >> signposting (see the other thread I started a few days ago). >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 12:15 PM, Jason Remillard >> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Would it be possible for somebody from telenav/scout/skobbler to >>> update this page, or make a new wiki page describing what tagging is >>> actually used to determine if a way is considered for a route? >>> >>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing >>> >>> Playing around with scout, I have discovered that it will not route >>> over tracks, cycleways, and paths unless you are in pedestrian mode. >>> It ignores access=destination, and the surface tag. >>> >>> Similarly to how default tile server shapes tagging, scout, skobbler , >>> osmand, etc, and the other widely used OSM routing applications will >>> inevitably shape tagging. It would be useful to document what the >>> mainstream routing application are actually doing rather than >>> guessing. >>> >>> Thanks >>> Jason >>> >>> ___ >>> Talk-us mailing list >>> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us >> >> >> >> -- >> Martijn van Exel >> President, US Chapter >> OpenStreetMap >> http://openstreetmap.us/ >> http://osm.org/ > > > > -- > Martijn van Exel > http://oegeo.wordpress.com/ > http://openstreetmap.us/ -- Martijn van Exel http://oegeo.wordpress.com/ http://openstreetmap.us/ ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] routing tags used by actual routing applications
I don't know how this keeps happening, but I responded with my osm.us account again. I sincerely apologize. Of course, I am not speaking as the board president on matters like these. Martijn On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 5:18 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote: > Hi Jason, > > I hadn't seen that page for a while, thank you for reminding me. I > don't really trust that page to be reliable, because it does not > contain any concrete references to applications / services actually > adhering to these conventions. > > With that said I agree fully that having a resource that *is* > trustworthy (containing references to which router supports certain > conventions) is becoming increasingly important - especially now that > we're getting close to getting routing / directions support on > osm.org. I will make it a priority to see about sharing the > conventions we support, and working with other major nav / directions > providers to discuss optimal support for less well defined tags like > signposting (see the other thread I started a few days ago). > > > On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 12:15 PM, Jason Remillard > wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Would it be possible for somebody from telenav/scout/skobbler to >> update this page, or make a new wiki page describing what tagging is >> actually used to determine if a way is considered for a route? >> >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing >> >> Playing around with scout, I have discovered that it will not route >> over tracks, cycleways, and paths unless you are in pedestrian mode. >> It ignores access=destination, and the surface tag. >> >> Similarly to how default tile server shapes tagging, scout, skobbler , >> osmand, etc, and the other widely used OSM routing applications will >> inevitably shape tagging. It would be useful to document what the >> mainstream routing application are actually doing rather than >> guessing. >> >> Thanks >> Jason >> >> ___ >> Talk-us mailing list >> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > > > > -- > Martijn van Exel > President, US Chapter > OpenStreetMap > http://openstreetmap.us/ > http://osm.org/ -- Martijn van Exel http://oegeo.wordpress.com/ http://openstreetmap.us/ ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] routing tags used by actual routing applications
Hi Jason, I hadn't seen that page for a while, thank you for reminding me. I don't really trust that page to be reliable, because it does not contain any concrete references to applications / services actually adhering to these conventions. With that said I agree fully that having a resource that *is* trustworthy (containing references to which router supports certain conventions) is becoming increasingly important - especially now that we're getting close to getting routing / directions support on osm.org. I will make it a priority to see about sharing the conventions we support, and working with other major nav / directions providers to discuss optimal support for less well defined tags like signposting (see the other thread I started a few days ago). On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 12:15 PM, Jason Remillard wrote: > Hi, > > Would it be possible for somebody from telenav/scout/skobbler to > update this page, or make a new wiki page describing what tagging is > actually used to determine if a way is considered for a route? > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing > > Playing around with scout, I have discovered that it will not route > over tracks, cycleways, and paths unless you are in pedestrian mode. > It ignores access=destination, and the surface tag. > > Similarly to how default tile server shapes tagging, scout, skobbler , > osmand, etc, and the other widely used OSM routing applications will > inevitably shape tagging. It would be useful to document what the > mainstream routing application are actually doing rather than > guessing. > > Thanks > Jason > > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us -- Martijn van Exel President, US Chapter OpenStreetMap http://openstreetmap.us/ http://osm.org/ ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] routing tags used by actual routing applications
> Il giorno 01/lug/2014, alle ore 23:15, Jason Remillard > ha scritto: > > For example, scout does > not route over highway=tracks, unless you are in pedestrian mode. It > seems like a reasonable decision, perhaps all of the routers do this, no, some routers do use tracks for car routing (I'd expect a router to use tracks for cars, but only as a last resort when there are no alternatives) In your original post you mentioned path and cycleway, those should indeed not route cars > but the wiki documentation says nothing of the sort, and it surprised > me. I'd file a bug at scout and see what they respond, you should definitely not adapt osm data based on one router cheers, Martin ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] routing tags used by actual routing applications
Hi Martin, Some of the highway tag values are not clear. For example, scout does not route over highway=tracks, unless you are in pedestrian mode. It seems like a reasonable decision, perhaps all of the routers do this, but the wiki documentation says nothing of the sort, and it surprised me. If I see some weird route, related to missing highway=track tag, should I change the osm data, file a bug into scout, edit the highway=track wiki? I have no idea. A start would be to have the 3 or 4 popular routers document what they are doing with the tags, since the code is proprietary, and then it will be easier to sort out who to blame when a bad route is generated. Jason > > OK for individual applications to document what they are (currently) using, > but this is probably dynamic over time. From a mapping perspective you should > describe the road network as best as you can to meet actual reality and not > tag for a single application. Rather file a bug for scout or others to fix > their rules if some correctly tagged road is not (yet) taken into account... > > cheers, > Martin ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] routing tags used by actual routing applications
> Il giorno 01/lug/2014, alle ore 20:15, Jason Remillard > ha scritto: > > Similarly to how default tile server shapes tagging, scout, skobbler , > osmand, etc, and the other widely used OSM routing applications will > inevitably shape tagging. It would be useful to document what the > mainstream routing application are actually doing rather than > guessing. OK for individual applications to document what they are (currently) using, but this is probably dynamic over time. From a mapping perspective you should describe the road network as best as you can to meet actual reality and not tag for a single application. Rather file a bug for scout or others to fix their rules if some correctly tagged road is not (yet) taken into account... cheers, Martin ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] routing tags used by actual routing applications
Stava is also routing with OSM. I CC'd Paul Mach who spoke about their cool Slide tool for mapping paths at SOTMUS 14. I'm wondering if the strava routing considers said tags. On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 2:15 PM, Jason Remillard wrote: > Hi, > > Would it be possible for somebody from telenav/scout/skobbler to > update this page, or make a new wiki page describing what tagging is > actually used to determine if a way is considered for a route? > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing > > Playing around with scout, I have discovered that it will not route > over tracks, cycleways, and paths unless you are in pedestrian mode. > It ignores access=destination, and the surface tag. > > Similarly to how default tile server shapes tagging, scout, skobbler , > osmand, etc, and the other widely used OSM routing applications will > inevitably shape tagging. It would be useful to document what the > mainstream routing application are actually doing rather than > guessing. > > Thanks > Jason > > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > -- Elliott Plack http://about.me/elliottp ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] routing tags used by actual routing applications
Hi, Would it be possible for somebody from telenav/scout/skobbler to update this page, or make a new wiki page describing what tagging is actually used to determine if a way is considered for a route? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing Playing around with scout, I have discovered that it will not route over tracks, cycleways, and paths unless you are in pedestrian mode. It ignores access=destination, and the surface tag. Similarly to how default tile server shapes tagging, scout, skobbler , osmand, etc, and the other widely used OSM routing applications will inevitably shape tagging. It would be useful to document what the mainstream routing application are actually doing rather than guessing. Thanks Jason ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
