Hi Peter, There are a lot of SCC with only 1 node, like: http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1707762331 http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/386885888 http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/364825950
Step 4 is only to findSubnetwork(), and print some info, not removal them. So, step 4 is optional. Now I only understand why this happen. :( *Best Regards,* *ZhiQiang ZHAO* On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 2:28 AM, Peter <[email protected]> wrote: > 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]> 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
