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

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: > > >

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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...

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

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 >>

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

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

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

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://li

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

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? ___

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

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. Rat

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

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

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

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. T

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

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)

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

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

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

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 th

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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 require

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

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 >>

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

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

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

[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

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

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 i

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

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:unoffic

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

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

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

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

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

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/cyc

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

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 >> (hopef

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

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 fe

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

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,

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

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

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

Even though there is a huge userbase in OSM that are avic cyclists, most of the information is still car centric, even though there are good intentions to change this. The problem is, we are living in a motorcar centric society, hence our whole road network is based on the idea to enable motori