On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 11:31:45 +1000
John Smith wrote:
> 2009/12/19 Ross Scanlon :
> > The first is easy, is quick to implement and brings the roundabouts into
> > line with the wiki, the second may take some time.
>
> As I stated some time ago it might be good to document this on the
> wiki as t
2009/12/19 Roy Wallace :
> This is subjective and, as I said, depends on "what we are mapping".
> E.g. IF we are mapping the "centrelines of paths of travel" in terms
> of geographic location, clearly _messy is more accurate/complete. But
> that's a big IF. I'm not saying _messy is better, I'm just
On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Ross Scanlon wrote:
>
>> This is an interesting example. The "_messy" and "_simple" techniques,
>> of course, could just as well be described as "_complete" and
>> "_approximate", etc.
>
> No _messy is over mapped and _simple is accurate.
This is subjective and,
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 07:31:59 +1000
Roy Wallace wrote:
> This is an interesting example. The "_messy" and "_simple" techniques,
> of course, could just as well be described as "_complete" and
> "_approximate", etc.
No _messy is over mapped and _simple is accurate.
> The real issue here is "what
2009/12/19 Steve Bennett :
> Yes. Although if we're trying to make our map data work with routers we
> can't fix (eg, Garmin), then we're in an interesting situation.
Depends how much control the preprocessing software has over garmin
devices, I don't have a garmin so I can't test etc.
> ("Don't
2009/12/19 Ross Scanlon :
> The first is easy, is quick to implement and brings the roundabouts into line
> with the wiki, the second may take some time.
As I stated some time ago it might be good to document this on the
wiki as to how not to do a roundabout, I wasn't aware and even when I
explai
> Automatically inserting extra ways? Could work. Would be good to decide once
> and for all how to map these things rather than letting the current
> ambiguity reign.
>
> Not that "deciding" means we have to immediately go out and fix every
> roundabout, but a clear "preferred" and "deprecated" d
On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Roy Wallace wrote:
> Sure, and I see the logic - but the fact you needed to "think long and
> hard" means it's probably better if the routing can be fixed to cope
> with either kind of mapping.
>
Yes. Although if we're trying to make our map data work with route
On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 9:46 AM, John Henderson wrote:
>
> I thought long and hard about this issue before I make the first
> "correction" to a local roundabout. I came to the conclusion that
> roundabout entry and exit points should be separate.
Sure, and I see the logic - but the fact you need
On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 8:31 AM, Roy Wallace wrote:
> The real issue here is "what are we mapping" - and with the
> intersection example, the issue seems to be whether the ways should
> accurately correspond to geographic reality (_messy), or not
> (_simple).
>
IMHO, it's quite simple: we proba
Roy Wallace wrote:
> +1. A problem with the router requires a simple ROUTER fix. The router
> just needs to be told that when entering a junction with a roundabout,
> that also happens to have an exit, that exit counts as the "first
> exit".
I can just see the people at Garmin falling over themse
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 8:10 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
>
> In that case, the voting means nothing at all? Weird.
>From my perspective, voting's similar to asking for opinions on an
email list, just with the added benefit of yes/no responses and
documentation of results.
__
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 6:12 PM, Ross Scanlon wrote:
>
> I have not changed the current intersection in osm but here are two screen
> shots of the intersection in josm.
>
> http://www.4x4falcon.com/osm/junctions/intersection_messy.jpg
> http://www.4x4falcon.com/osm/junctions/intersection_simple.j
> > Better way to do it is zoomed out so you can see the whole section you want
> > to trace. Mark an end point then mark the other end. Then zoom and
> > accurately adjust the end points, once they are in the correct place then
> > add extra points if necessary.
> >
>
> Yeah but then if there a
2009/12/18 Steve Bennett :
> Yeah but then if there are curvy bits – which I want to be maximally zoomed
> in for – that doesn't work. Personally I'm not seeing a lot of harm in
> excess nodes. Of all the things you could do wrong, it ranks pretty low in
> harm.
You're right, there is no harm in i
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 11:43 PM, Ross Scanlon wrote:
> Better way to do it is zoomed out so you can see the whole section you want
> to trace. Mark an end point then mark the other end. Then zoom and
> accurately adjust the end points, once they are in the correct place then
> add extra points
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 21:13:44 +1100
Steve Bennett wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 7:12 PM, Ross Scanlon wrote:
>
> > Likewise it's not necessary to have multiple nodes on a straight section of
> > road (unless it's really long). As an example I just came across one
> > straight road that was 1
As per email below, intersection_simple.jpg is the method I have adopted.
Agree with multiple nodes on straight roads, I have been fixing them up as I
find them.
Separated ways is an interesting one and people do it differently. I am of
the opinion that they have to be 'physically separate' ie ther
2009/12/18 Steve Bennett :
> I'm guilty of this sometimes. One reason for me comes from the method of
> tracing: zoom in, mark points along the longest straight stretch you can
> see, then pan the map, repeat, etc. If you're very zoomed in, you can't tell
> that the road will be straight off the sc
2009/12/18 Steve Bennett :
> In that case, the voting means nothing at all? Weird.
It's a left over practise from a time it would have been more
appropriate/useful, but since the number of users have increased by
several orders of magnitude it has become a much less efficient way to
do things.
>
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 7:12 PM, Ross Scanlon wrote:
> Likewise it's not necessary to have multiple nodes on a straight section of
> road (unless it's really long). As an example I just came across one
> straight road that was 150m long. It had 6 nodes on it where it could have
> been drawn with
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 4:31 PM, John Smith wrote:
> Technically all it does is introduce it to the map features page, but
> that doesn't mean you can't use it anyway, it doesn't mean you can't
> document it's usage on other pages, although some people say that map
> features shouldn't be updated
2009/12/18 Ross Scanlon :
> Likewise it's not necessary to have multiple nodes on a straight section of
> road (unless it's really long). As an example I just came across one
> straight road that was 150m long. It had 6 nodes on it where it could have
> been drawn with three. One at each end of
> The intersection shown in the links below is an interesting case. As it is
> currently mapped in OSM, the mapper is showing the turning posibilities at
> the intersection (and to a lesser extent that the turning lanes have their
> own separate traffic light sequences). To my mind this is over map
I have been watching the discussion with interest. My perspective on mapping
is getting the topology absolutely correct. All routing is driven by the
topology of the underlying data (and the routing engine of the specific
manufacturer). What I say below is said without criticism of the original
map
2009/12/18 Steve Bennett :
> Does it mean that the tag now goes in "map features"? is that the only way?
> What does it matter? etc.
Technically all it does is introduce it to the map features page, but
that doesn't mean you can't use it anyway, it doesn't mean you can't
document it's usage on oth
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 3:52 PM, John Smith wrote:
> I missed the comment about voting, it's mostly a pointless exercise,
> current estimates claim almost 200,000 users, and the current voting
> system suggest about 15 votes for a proposal, does seem like a very
> good majority to me.
>
I'm more
2009/12/18 Steve Bennett :
> Ok, so pretty much as far you're concerned, discussion, proposals and voting
I missed the comment about voting, it's mostly a pointless exercise,
current estimates claim almost 200,000 users, and the current voting
system suggest about 15 votes for a proposal, does see
2009/12/18 Steve Bennett :
> Ok, so pretty much as far you're concerned, discussion, proposals and voting
> only serve the purpose of convincing people to change their ways - the final
> decision is not binding on anyone? In other words, if you disagree with a
> tagging decision, you'll just ignore
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 3:37 PM, John Smith wrote:
> That's the problem in this case, I didn't think what I was doing was
> wrong, still don't really because the issue isn't with the map data
> it's with how the routing software is interpreting it.
>
Ok, so pretty much as far you're concerned, di
2009/12/18 Steve Bennett :
> Do you personally see anything wrong with different people mapping the same
> thing different ways?
Only if things can't be harmonised so they are displayed/useful in a
similar/same way, if they diverge then it just becomes a bit of a
mess.
> Do you personally see any
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 3:06 PM, John Smith wrote:
> personally I don't see anything wrong with mapping roundabouts how I
> have in the past even though it's implied by the wiki to do it that
> way.
Do you personally see anything wrong with different people mapping the same
thing different ways?
2009/12/18 Steve Bennett :
> On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 2:44 PM, John Smith
> wrote:
>>
>> 2009/12/18 Steve Bennett :
>> > I'm sorry, but this just doesn't even look close to me. I can imagine
>> > ambiguous circumstances, but this isn't one. This is analogous to the
>>
>> We aren't making perfect co
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 13:44:18 +1000
John Smith wrote:
> 2009/12/18 Steve Bennett :
> > I'm sorry, but this just doesn't even look close to me. I can imagine
> > ambiguous circumstances, but this isn't one. This is analogous to the
>
> We aren't making perfect copies of the real world, we're makin
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 2:44 PM, John Smith wrote:
> 2009/12/18 Steve Bennett :
> > I'm sorry, but this just doesn't even look close to me. I can imagine
> > ambiguous circumstances, but this isn't one. This is analogous to the
>
> We aren't making perfect copies of the real world, we're making
>
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 11:26:37 +1000
John Smith wrote:
> 2009/12/18 Ross Scanlon :
> > Wrong, on everyone of these you have to enter the roundabout and then take
> > the next exit, it is not a graceful sweep.
>
> We really shouldn't have to map, if they are an exit they're an exit!
> It shouldn't
2009/12/18 Steve Bennett :
> I'm sorry, but this just doesn't even look close to me. I can imagine
> ambiguous circumstances, but this isn't one. This is analogous to the
We aren't making perfect copies of the real world, we're making
approximate depictions of it.
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 7:59 AM, wrote:
> In the first case I have edited the entry, exit and roundabout as meeting
> at
> exactly one node. IMHO this represents reality and if the router can't
> handle
> it then the router should be upgraded to suit (or its OSM-to-router-format
> script suitabl
2009/12/18 Ross Scanlon :
> Wrong, on everyone of these you have to enter the roundabout and then take
> the next exit, it is not a graceful sweep.
We really shouldn't have to map, if they are an exit they're an exit!
It shouldn't really matter if they are attached to an adjoining entry
or not. U
> Well, I would rather represent geometrical reality than play tricks for
> routers.
>
> Take a comparative example:
>
> http://www.nearmap.com/?ll=-28.0917,153.3945&z=19&t=k
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-28.0917&lon=153.3945&zoom=18&layers=B000FTT
>
> You can see that to get from S to W
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 6:59 AM, wrote:
>
> In the first case I have edited the entry, exit and roundabout as meeting at
> exactly one node. IMHO this represents reality and if the router can't handle
> it then the router should be upgraded to suit (or its OSM-to-router-format
> script suitably
morb@beagle.com.au wrote:
> "The first exit (west on Ginninderra Drive) isn't being counted as an exit
> because that exit point is also my entry point."
>
> Well, I would rather represent geometrical reality than play tricks for
> routers.
>
> Take a comparative example:
>
> http://www.ne
Ben Kelley wrote:
> Heh. My sister-in-law lives near here. The directions on my eTrext Legend did
> confuse me a little at that intersection. I assumed the intersection hadn't
> been drawn quite right, but I never got around to going back and fixing it.
I fixed this one.
--
Sam Couter |
"The first exit (west on Ginninderra Drive) isn't being counted as an exit
because that exit point is also my entry point."
Well, I would rather represent geometrical reality than play tricks for routers.
Take a comparative example:
http://www.nearmap.com/?ll=-28.0917,153.3945&z=19&t=k
http://ww
Heh. My sister-in-law lives near here. The directions on my eTrext Legend
did confuse me a little at that intersection. I assumed the intersection
hadn't been drawn quite right, but I never got around to going back and
fixing it.
- Ben.
2009/12/17 John Henderson
> Here's an example:
>
> http:/
2009/12/17 John Smith :
> 2009/12/17 Ross Scanlon :
>> If they are drawn as in the third example in the wiki then it's not a
>> problem.
>>
>> It becomes a problem when you join an entry and exit flare to the one node,
>> which is incorrect anyway.
>
> There probably needs some examples of what n
Ross Scanlon wrote:
> It becomes a problem when you join an entry and exit flare to the one node,
> which is incorrect anyway.
Well put.
John
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
2009/12/17 Ross Scanlon :
> If they are drawn as in the third example in the wiki then it's not a problem.
>
> It becomes a problem when you join an entry and exit flare to the one node,
> which is incorrect anyway.
There probably needs some examples of what no to do on that page just
to highligh
> > The problem arises mainly with economically-drawn "flared" approaches to
> > roundabouts, as that term is used in
> > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:junction%3Droundabout
> >
> > John
> >
> So the wiki needs a note that flares (can) mess up routing ??
If they are drawn as in the third
> John Smith wrote:
>
>> Adding in postcodes and the BP data I've noticed a LOT of square
>> roundabouts...
>
> The problem arises mainly with economically-drawn "flared" approaches to
> roundabouts, as that term is used in
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:junction%3Droundabout
>
> John
>
S
John Smith wrote:
> Adding in postcodes and the BP data I've noticed a LOT of square
> roundabouts...
The problem arises mainly with economically-drawn "flared" approaches to
roundabouts, as that term is used in
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:junction%3Droundabout
John
__
2009/12/17 Ross Scanlon :
> Agree totally with John and likewise I have been editing roundabouts where
> this occurs.
Adding in postcodes and the BP data I've noticed a LOT of square roundabouts...
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
htt
> And this is because of the way the roundabout has been drawn. The first
> exit (west on Ginninderra Drive) isn't being counted as an exit because
> that exit point is also my entry point. In other words, it shows that
> one need not actually enter the roundabout to take that first turn.
>
>
To me it seems an important aspect of OSM that its routable maps work
well. I had been using my Garmin 76CSx with OSM maps to check this
functionality.
Because the screen is too small for thorough hands-free checking, I've
just bought a Garmin Nuvi 1350. I'm finding that using this to direct
54 matches
Mail list logo
