I'm sure you know this, but it's not just street crossings(intersections) you need to connect, service roads example: parking lot entrances and exits also need to be connected
On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 11:43 PM, Nick Bolten <[email protected]> wrote: > The fact that small disconnected pedestrian islands breaks routing is a > problem for routers more than the map, although high-quality pedestrian > transportation network data is the ideal. It will never be the case that > the entire pedestrian network is added all at once, or without disconnected > portions. On the router end, it should be as simple as either removing > disconnected subgraphs or preventing disconnected subgraphs from being > selected during the initial 'find the closest valid way' step. > > I'm in contact with the mappers putting in the time to map pedestrian ways > in San Jose and they're putting together a dataset of street crossings to > start importing. I'd like to suggest that we support their endeavor and > time commitments by supporting the inclusion of street crossings, rather > than discouraging mapping via threats of reverts on changesets. Everyone's > at the table and working to improve the data. > > On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 3:44 PM Michael Reichert <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hi Minh, >> >> this is a follow-up of the discussion of changeset 52318833 >> (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/52318833). >> >> The sidewalk data has been lying around in OSM for about a month. It was >> errorenouos and made pedestrian routing unusable. An import should not >> reduce the data quality. >> >> There were only few comments on the mailing list during the discussion >> of this import but this does not mean that the imported data is immune. >> The import guidelines are rules which *reduces* the probability that the >> import will be reverted if you follow them. If there are serious issues, >> a revert (as one method of cleanup) is possible. >> >> I asked to fix the issue on this mailing list and added changeset >> comments to some changesets of some users who participated the import to >> make them aware. I did not see a real progress on the issue and decided >> to mention a deadline. If a manual cleanup (manual addition of >> connections) starts, there is a progress and I achieved what I want: >> Imported data should not be in OSM in a half-baked state. >> >> A revert does not mean that the data can never be imported again. If >> there is an improved plan which includes addition of >> crossings and a proper connection to the road network at the time the >> data is uploaded (or within a few hours afterwards), I will agree with >> the import. I offer to produce a OSM XML file which can be loaded into >> JOSM. The objects will have their old IDs and history will be preserved. >> If you avoid editing in the same area and regularly upload and download >> during your activity, it is even possible that multiple users in >> parallel re-import (and add connections) the data. >> >> Am 16.10.2017 um 08:16 schrieb Minh Nguyen: >> > That is indeed a problem we hope to eradicate once the crosswalk mapping >> > project gets underway. It isn't unique to imports, though: for example, >> > the adjacent town of Los Gatos has been mapped fairly extensively with >> > sidewalks, and many crossings are missing there too: >> > >> > http://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_ >> foot&route=37.22855%2C-121.97027%3B37.22866%2C-121.97025 >> > >> > >> > http://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_ >> foot&route=37.22914%2C-121.96464%3B37.22918%2C-121.96475 >> > >> > >> > Even where crossings were added, they weren't connected to the road >> > network, leading to very roundabout routing: >> > >> > http://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_ >> foot&route=37.22733%2C-121.96631%3B37.22697%2C-121.96609 >> > >> > >> > These problems come up often from mappers who are unfamiliar with >> > pedestrian router needs. I mention these examples not to pass the blame >> > but rather to point out that the problem is not new in this area, yet >> > we're working deliberately to ensure that mappers won't have to worry as >> > much about these issues in the future. >> > >> > [1] http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/smw versus >> http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/smv >> >> A problem in an adjacent town cannot be used as a justification for >> deficiencies of an import. We are much more liberal with people mapping >> sidewalks manually than imports. An import adds more data in a shorter >> time and a problem in the process can therefore break more. That's why >> the import discussion is necessary but in this case people who offer >> their spare time to give regularly advice were busy with other things >> and forgot your import. >> >> Best regards >> >> Michael >> >> >> -- >> Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt. (Mailinglisten >> ausgenommen) >> I prefer GPG encryption of emails. (does not apply on mailing lists) >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Imports mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports >> > > _______________________________________________ > Imports mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports > > -- 外に遊びに行こう！
_______________________________________________ Imports mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
