Hi Peter, The parameter I set are minOnewayNetworkSize = 20, minNetworkSize = 200
on step 3, despite the node http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/678314919, the inside island is a SCC, and the size is larger than 20. So, this island is kept, instead of removal. And the http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/678314919 itself is a SCC. size is 1. Then it was removed. Then on step 4, the island is recognized as a subnetwork, which has size less than 200. *Best Regards,* *ZhiQiang ZHAO* On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 1:04 AM, Peter <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi ZhiQiang, > > you mean the oneway procedure (step 3) removes nodes+edges leading to > further normal subnetwork removal in step 4? This should not happen. The > subnetwork should be removed already in step 3. > > > On step 2, although there is a gate > http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/703042503 > > on http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/6374339 > > And gate block that edge. > > Because of this gate the island is a oneway subnetwork (!) and should get > entirely removed in step 2 IMO. > > > On step 3, a very important point are removed due to oneway > > If just one edge/node is removed there is something wrong. The whole > island should be removed. > > Kind Regards, > Peter > > > On 29.07.2015 09:50, John Zhao wrote: > > Hi Peter, > > I know the difference between subnetworks and oneway-subnetworks. > I am talking about the step 2 and step 4, not step 3. > > step 2 and step 4 are both findSubnetwork() with the same parameter. > minOnewayNetworkSize = 20, minNetworkSize = 200 > > I think I figure out why this discrepancy occurs. > One case is a island in SF bay area. The island has 2 oneway roads > connected to the main network. > http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/53726398 > http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/6374339 > > On step 2, although there is a gate > http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/703042503 on > http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/6374339 > And gate block that edge. > The other oneway is connected http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/53726398. > So, this island is connected to the whole network. > > On step 3, a very important point are removed due to oneway: > http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/678314919 > > Then on step 4, the island are not connected to the main network. > > *Best Regards,* > *ZhiQiang ZHAO* > > On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 11:12 PM, Peter <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi ZhiQiang, >> >> hmmh, not sure if I understand what is unknown at your side. >> >> Subnetworks are different things than oneway-subnetworks. For example 4-5 >> is a oneway subnetwork if connect with a oneway to the main graph only: >> mainGraph->4-5 >> >> And this cannot be detected in step 2. >> >> Please have a look at the unit tests to see more examples for the >> different scenes >> >> Regards, >> Peter >> >> >> On 28.07.2015 20:05, John Zhao wrote: >> >> Hi Peter, >> >> the result I posted is not the result of oneway-subnetwork procedure. >> >> The total procedures include: >> 1. remove zero-degree node >> 2. findSubnetwork >> 3. oneway-subnetwork procedure >> 4. findSubnetwork again on graphhopper.cleanup() >> >> My question is, why those islands are recognized on step 4, but not on >> step 2? >> >> >> >> *Best Regards,* >> *ZhiQiang ZHAO* >> >> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 12:02 AM, Peter <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi ZhiQiang, >>> >>> I think it is because both networks are oneway subnetworks not found by >>> the normal subnetwork procedure (but by the oneway-subnetwork procedure) >>> and you defined the oneway minimum size to 20 >>> >>> Regards, >>> Peter >>> >>> >>> On 28.07.2015 03:13, John Zhao wrote: >>> >>> Hi Peter, >>> >>> What I do is: >>> 1. minOnewayNetworkSize = 20, minNetworkSize = 200 >>> 2. build san francisco bay area osm data >>> 3. I print out the subnetworks result of the second call. >>> >>> int remainingSubnetworks = preparation.findSubnetworks().size(); >>> >>> 4. I found the subnetwork has some smaller than 200, like: >>> >>> subnetwork start from: 37.32611992939085,-121.9961998312816 size: 24 >>> >>> subnetwork start from: 37.78373608999855,-122.25065187925067 size: 34 >>> >>> 5. I can't understand why the subnetworks with 24 nodes and 34 nodes are >>> not removed by preparation.doWork(); >>> >>> It call the same method: >>> >>> Map map = this.findSubnetworks(); >>> >>> >>> *Best Regards,* >>> *ZhiQiang ZHAO* >>> >>> On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 12:54 PM, Peter <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi John, >>>> >>>> sorry, I do not understand your problem or question here. Would you >>>> describe it again step by step for me :) ? >>>> >>>> Kind Regards, >>>> Peter >>>> >>>> >>>> On 27.07.2015 21:45, John Zhao wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Peter, >>>> >>>> Thanks. >>>> Actually I only have 1 flagEncoder in the EncodingManager. >>>> The call is exact same, preparation.findSubnetworks() >>>> >>>> preparation.findSubnetworks() using edgeFilter which is also from >>>> singleEncoder. >>>> >>>> >>>> *Best Regards,* >>>> *ZhiQiang ZHAO* >>>> >>>> On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 7:56 AM, Peter <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi John, >>>>> >>>>> it should not be related to calling these method twice. It is just one >>>>> time where you calculate the subnetworks independent of any FlagEncoder or >>>>> direction via findSubnetworks and the second pass is FlagEncoder- and >>>>> access-dependent via removeDeadEndUnvisitedNetworks. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Peter >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 24.07.2015 21:16, John Zhao wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Peter, >>>>> >>>>> I am still confused. >>>>> at first we call >>>>> map = findSubnetworks(); >>>>> >>>>> after the cleanup, we call the same method in Graphhopper. >>>>> >>>>> int remainingSubnetworks = preparation.findSubnetworks().size(); >>>>> >>>>> Why the subnetwork was recognized the latter time, but not the first time? >>>>> >>>>> we remove some edges make it not connected? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *Best Regards,* >>>>> *ZhiQiang ZHAO* >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 2:22 PM, Peter <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi ZhiQiang, >>>>>> >>>>>> yes, according to the wiki this is wrongly mapped: >>>>>> * Avoid tagging highway intersections as that does not make clear >>>>>> which way has the impediment. * >>>>>> >>>>>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:barrier%3Dgate >>>>>> >>>>>> Peter >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 23.07.2015 23:16, John Zhao wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Peter, >>>>>> >>>>>> Maybe the following one related with >>>>>> https://github.com/graphhopper/graphhopper/issues/388#issuecomment-88066385 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I have a look at 37.32611992939085,-121.9961998312816. >>>>>> It seesm related with barrier=gate at intersection. >>>>>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1126492194 >>>>>> >>>>>> *Best Regards,* >>>>>> *ZhiQiang ZHAO* >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 2:11 PM, Peter <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There are two types of subnetworks and the smaller ones seems to be >>>>>>> 'one-way subnetworks' which means they are eg. only reachable as >>>>>>> destination or start. But if you would start from a destination-only >>>>>>> subnetwork you'll get 'not found' for all points outside of this >>>>>>> network. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>> Peter >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 23.07.2015 23:03, John Zhao wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Interesting, >>>>>>> when I increase minOnewayNetworkSize from 20 to 50, the following >>>>>>> two disappeared. >>>>>>> subnetwork start from: 37.32611992939085,-121.9961998312816 size: >>>>>>> 24 >>>>>>> subnetwork start from: 37.78373608999855,-122.25065187925067 size: >>>>>>> 34 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Best Regards,* >>>>>>> *ZhiQiang ZHAO* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 1:55 PM, John Zhao <[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I tried car flag encoder with following parameter on San >>>>>>>> Francisco bay area data from mapzen. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://s3.amazonaws.com/metro-extracts.mapzen.com/san-francisco-bay_california.osm.pbf >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> minNetworkSize=200 >>>>>>>> minOnewayNetworkSize=20 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I printed all the remaining subnetworks. >>>>>>>> edges: 591932, nodes 437420, there were 3496 subnetworks. removed >>>>>>>> them => 13121 less nodes. Remaining subnetworks:5 >>>>>>>> The remaining subnetworks are: >>>>>>>> subnetwork start from: 37.32611992939085,-121.9961998312816 size: 24 >>>>>>>> subnetwork start from: 37.56018439442332,-122.30257814308803 size: >>>>>>>> 436637 >>>>>>>> subnetwork start from: 37.78373608999855,-122.25065187925067 size: >>>>>>>> 34 >>>>>>>> subnetwork start from: 38.180185962770565,-121.70631393878864 size: >>>>>>>> 301 >>>>>>>> subnetwork start from: 37.85717050411933,-122.07633641532816 size: >>>>>>>> 424 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I don't understand why there is still subnetwork less than 200 >>>>>>>> nodes. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I have a look at 37.32611992939085,-121.9961998312816. >>>>>>>> It seesm related with barrier=gate at intersection. >>>>>>>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1126492194 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *Best Regards,* >>>>>>>> *ZhiQiang ZHAO* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> GraphHopper mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/graphhopper >>> >>> >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > GraphHopper mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/graphhopper > >
_______________________________________________ GraphHopper mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/graphhopper
