> On Jul 27, 2015, at 8:58 AM, James Mast <rickmastfa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> I've been normally mapping slip lanes as '_link' highways at intersections
> since the beginning. However, as most fellow US mappers know, they almost
> never have 'speed limits' posted for them, and that seems to help cause
> problems in some routing programs when they give those slip lanes a speed
> limit higher than the main highway.
>
> Anyways, I've been using OSMAnd recently for occasional offline routing on my
> tablet and have come across weird routing (I'd like to call them 'bugs') at
> some intersections that have 3+ traffic lights nodes at them because of the
> roads being divided. Here, OSMAnd routes me onto a slip lane, makes a U-Turn
> on the side road, and then continues the across the main road to accomplish
> what a simple 'left turn' could have done [1], all to avoid '1' traffic light
> node. So, I go report the 'bug' on the OSMAnd Google group [2], and then
> somebody forwards it to the GitHub site [3].
>
> In the response I get back on GitHub, one of the maintainers of OSMAnd says
> it's a 'map data' issue and closes it. Claims that in the 'maneuver', since
> it avoids an extra traffic light node, it's the shortest route, even though
> it does that funky U-Turn. Say what?! I mean, honestly, if both MapQuest
> Open & OSMR can do that left turn 'normally' without needing to make a funky
> U-Turn, something has to be wrong in OSMAnd, right?? Sure, there isn't a 'NO
> U-Turn' sign posted for this maneuver, but still, the routing engine
> shouldn't be suggesting it since there isn't a 'NO Left Turn' relation there
> preventing the left turn from McKnight SB to Siebert EB.
>
> So, that leads me to my question. Does anybody think I've tagged the
> intersection incorrectly? This is how I've been tagging intersections like
> this from since the start, and I know most other US mappers have been doing
> the same. Or should I start adding 'false' U-Turn restrictions to prevent
> the routing bugs and then be called out as 'tagging for the router', or even
> maybe start putting traffic light nodes at the stop lines for intersections
> that have both roads divided (and just leave simple one-node intersections
> as-is)?
>
> I'm very curious to see what others have to say about this to see how I'll
> move forward when I map in the future. Also, don't hesitate to respond at
> the Google Group post or the GitHub one too as I get the e-mail notifications
> from them as well.
>
> -James
I use OSMand for a couple of reasons, but I am really beginning to think that
the developers are confused with their routing logic and assumptions. I’ve
largely fixed the routing via _link ways by changing routing.xml for my
personal use. My changes delete all their odd penalty logic when changing from
one class of highway to another and simply set a reasonable default assumed
speed for ways without maxspeed tagging. Basically, I set the maxspeed
assumptions to be that for my state and then set the _link speeds to 1/2 that
of the associated highway class. That fix has been mentioned by several posters
on the OSMand discussion area and has been routinely ignored over several
OSMand releases.
So my opinion is that you are mapping correctly (as evidenced by other routing
engines giving reasonable results) and that the OSMand team is getting confused
about how to actually fix the routing issues that are routinely being posted on
their Google Group area.
Cheers,
Tod
_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
