Bonjour Martijn
Le problème de navigation que tu mentionnes ne s'explique pas par les données 
OSM. Vous tentatives de régler ces problèmes des logiciels de navigation 
alourdissent inutilement la base OSM. Les cles turn peuvent souvent etre 
utilisées et sont moins complexes que les relations de restriction - voir 
exemples

The navigation problem you present is not due to OSM data. The fixes for 
software navigation problems make the database unecessary more complex, 
especially with restriction relations - See examples.

way=385943816, relation no left turn , junction to a oneway - Why ?
way=385943815, relation no left turn, turn=through key would be simpler

your routing example to turn right, the routing software skips the primary 
link. Why ?
way=172236000, primary link well connected -> routing software problem to fix 
first ?
More routing examples around:
routing software accepts the previous primary link to turn right
https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=mapzen_car&route=40.66632%2C-111.86855%3B40.66532%2C-111.86682#map=18/40.66579/-111.86688

routing software accepts to turn left even if a restriction relation on turn 
leftway=385943814, relation 5743391, restriction no left 
turnhttps://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=mapzen_car&route=40.66632%2C-111.86855%3B40.66641%2C-111.86492#map=18/40.66600/-111.86668

In the opposite direction, the software accepts to turn left on the primary 
linkhttps://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=mapzen_car&route=40.66503%2C-111.86237%3B40.66532%2C-111.86682#map=17/40.66552/-111.86460
And worst, the software accepts to make a u-turn on the primary links - 
probably adding a simple key turn=through would fix this.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=mapzen_car&route=40.66503%2C-111.86237%3B40.66608%2C-111.86699#map=18/40.66574/-111.86540
 Pierre 


      De : Martijn van Exel <m...@rtijn.org>
 À : Andrew Lester <a-les...@shaw.ca> 
Cc : talk-ca <talk-ca@openstreetmap.org>
 Envoyé le : jeudi 30 mars 2017 11h51
 Objet : Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions
   
Hi Andrew (and let me reply to Pierre's comments too, sorry Pierre, I am a 
little slow parsing French).
First off thanks for your additional comments, they are really useful. I 
realize that I should have shared more detail about what we are planning to do 
and will do a better job in the future if new projects arise. We are actually 
working on a Github repository (similar to Mapbox's) where we will share more 
details about mapping projects and where everybody will be able to talk to the 
team about what we do. Of course we will continue to post here as well.
We do have a serious onboarding process for new mappers on our team where more 
experienced mappers guide the newcomers and introduce them to the OSM 
ecosystem. So they are not quite thrown in the deep end, but like everybody 
else they go through a learning process where they make simple edits first. We 
don't ever use live OSM data for pilot or test projects.
I don't feel there's a consensus about the turn restrictions in places where 
they are not marked. There are really good (routing / safety related) reasons 
for this as I pointed out before [1] and in my research I have found many of 
these in the U.S. as well, but until that is cleared up we will not add any 
more. This includes the left turn restrictions Pierre mentioned. To Pierre's 
comments, I don't think that there's really an easier way to map this, turn 
restrictions have been discussed in the community at length and other solutions 
not based on relations just don't scale well to complex situations.
The Bing imagery alignment issue is one that we have not given proper attention 
and I will impress upon the team that they should pay really close attention to 
this and be even more restrained in modifying local mappers' work. I seem to 
remember there is a site / place that lists offset issues with Bing imagery by 
region? Is there a good source to look at for this?
I'm thinking it would be good to hold an online town hall where some of our 
team members and myself can answer any questions and discuss the issues raised? 
If you're interested in this let me know off-list and we can set up a time.
Thanks again for your feedback and willingness to work on this with me and the 
team. We really do want to improve the map for everyone and we will be taking 
this as an opportunity to do significantly better.
Martijn
[1] Look for example at this situation where there is no turn restriction on an 
intersection with a _link road and OSRM does not route over the _link road. 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_car&route=40.66610%2C-111.86760%3B40.66386%2C-111.86464#map=18/40.66520/-111.86552
 It is these kinds of (potentially unsafe) situations that we are really 
looking to prevent, not only for Scout users but for all routing software using 
OSM. (This is in the US not in Canada but the situation could occur anywhere.) 

On Mar 29, 2017, at 11:14 PM, Andrew Lester <a-les...@shaw.ca> wrote:
Hi Martijn,

Thanks for your comments. Yes, I have commented on relevant changesets, though 
not every one I've come across. To be honest, there are far too many 
problematic changesets to start discussions on all of them.

In using some QA tools to fix other problems, I've come across further 
instances of what could best be described as "sloppy" edits. For example, 
adjustments to road alignments to align them with Bing, but obviously with no 
attempt to properly align the imagery first. Bing is off by 15-20 metres in 
much of southern Vancouver Island outside of downtown Victoria, and I've seen 
some roads being moved that much out of place. Here's an example changeset: 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/46740353 (viewed with Achavi: 
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=46740353#map=16). I see the source 
"Geobase roads" has been listed as being used as part of the edits, which 
actually reflects the correct alignment, but this seems to have been ignored in 
favour of the poorly-aligned Bing imagery. In addition, I've found a number of 
edits by Telenav members creating or moving highways such that they cross 
footways without an intersecting node, which indicates that the JOSM validator 
isn't being used before uploading the changes.

In my opinion, based on what I'm seeing, the Telenav members don't have enough 
experience with the OSM ecosystem, tagging/mapping conventions, or editing 
tools to be making such widespread and prolific changes. I would strongly 
recommend that these members focus on mapping a local area that they can visit 
in person in order to gain experience with all aspects of actual on-the-ground 
mapping, and then later begin expanding to the rest of the country. Right now 
it seems like they're being thrown into the deep end with the hope that they'll 
just figure things out, and we're having to deal with the mess they're 
creating. I'm sure they mean well, but they just aren't qualified to be making 
the nationwide changes they are currently. I also strongly recommend that 
detailed proposals are brought to this community's attention before widespread 
tagging changes are made, such as the creation of tens of thousands of 
restrictions as detailed by Pierre. It would be good to confirm that the team 
is going to be making useful and correct changes before actually going ahead, 
just in case there's a better way of tagging/mapping things that the team 
wasn't aware of.

As for the right-turn restrictions that I brought up earlier, I've posed the 
question of the legality of these right turns to a couple of sources (one 
that's pretty official) and am just waiting on a response. I hope to have one 
soon. This will only apply to BC, but it might help indicate whether the laws 
need to be investigated for other provinces as well.

Andrew

From: m...@rtijn.org
To: "talk-ca" <talk-ca@openstreetmap.org>
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2017 9:08:26 AM
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions

Hi all, 

Thanks for your thoughtful commentary. 

First off, our mapping team’s only objective is to improve the map for us and 
for everyone. In doing this we always respect the work of local mappers, and 
follow community conventions. None of our edits are automated. There is a 
person using JOSM behind every changeset, so if you observe something untoward, 
please comment on the changeset so we can learn, discuss or undo if necessary.

Some of our mapping team members are on this list and they can (and will) 
explain a bit more about how (and why) we add turn restrictions.

I make a point to announce any new mapping projects we start to the local 
mailing lists (like I did when I started this thread). If there is anything we 
can do to be more open about our mapping projects I would be eager to discuss 
with you.

Again, if you have specific concerns about edits any of our team members make 
in your local area, please! raise them in the changeset comments. It’s the 
single most effective way for us to learn how to to do better. Members of our 
mapping team are always identifiable by their usernames ending in _telenav.

Martijn

> On Mar 26, 2017, at 7:45 PM, Stewart C. Russell <scr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Andrew:
> 
>> … I had already removed some of the
>> right turn restrictions, but I can add them back in
> 
> Are the restrictions even necessary? If there are turn lanes present,
> one should use them. I can see, however, that routing software might
> send vehicles through the traffic lights if the turn lane were a longer
> route. I wonder if Telenav are tagging to work around their routing
> algorithms?
> 
>> There's still the matter of armchair mapping wiping out on-the-ground
>> mapping.
> 
> Yes, this is troubling to me too. Have you left comments on the
> changesets? Telenav's actions need to be brought out into the open.
> 
> I'm really not looking forward to seeing what all this algorithmic
> mapping's going to do with Canada's logging roads ...
> 
> Stewart
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca


_______________________________________________
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca


_______________________________________________
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca


   
_______________________________________________
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Reply via email to