Re: [Talk-us] access road routing - two real world cases
I would tag *access=destination* here, and hope routers don't use that route unless the way is within the bounding box (or at least near) to my destination. ___ 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
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] access road routing - two real world cases
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 stevea...@softworkers.com 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] access road routing - two real world cases
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 kli...@gmail.com 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.svghttp://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
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 kli...@gmail.com 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 stevea...@softworkers.com 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
