Hi ZhiQiang, > And the http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/678314919 itself is a SCC. size is 1.
It shouldn't be a SCC im my opinion - is there a bug? If it is not a bug - do you have a suggestion for this, like avoiding step 4? Regards, Peter On 29.07.2015 11:18, John Zhao wrote: > 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] > <mailto:[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] >> <mailto:[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] >>> <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] >>>>>> <mailto:[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] >>>>>>> <mailto:[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] >>>>>>>> <mailto:[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
