Vivek,
Back in September you asked in
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/imports/2017-September/005160.html
for "a community review of our project". What people said in reply were
things that included 'Please confirm that your process will not be
limited to "uploading" sidewalks but also ensuring they are properly
connected'.
It's been two months now; which is more than enough time to process and
deal with that request. Unfortunately, we're still seeing brand new
"sidewalk islands" being added (just in the last few minutes). Last
month you said (see below) "The intention of our project is to have a
connected sidewalk network of high quality achieved in a speedy
manner". Can you please explain what progress you have made towards
this? Even changesets that say things like "Connected near sidewalks"
don't appear to be connecting anything:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/540094239#map=16/37.2896/-121.8238
If you can't show a deliverable plan to achieve connectivity will have
to ask you to stop importing, at least until you have connected up the
data that has been imported so far. If you can't do that then we'll
have to look again at the data that has already been imported, as
currently its presence makes pedestrian routing in SJ significantly harder*.
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group.
* I'm a regular user of pedestrian routing "on the ground" and am very
familiar with how e.g. a Garmin handheld will cope with both good valid
connected data and invalid unconnected data.
On 16/10/2017 05:41, Vivek Bansal wrote:
Michael,
Thank you for following our import and checking on our progress.
Respectfully, I do understand what Frederik was saying and what would
happen with this import. I understand how important it is to have a
fully connected network. The intention of our project is to have a
connected sidewalk network of high quality achieved in a speedy manner.
The area we are working in has existing problems with routing, with
sidewalks not connected to roads. Pedestrian routing is also generally
poor in the suburbs. Through the process of our import and the
subsequent adding of intersections, the network will soon be better
than when we started.
I'll put more effort in working with Nick and the Open Sidewalks team
to figure out the fastest way to generate connections. If that is not
looking like a successful path we will start doing it manually.
With best regards,
-Vivek Bansal (3vivekb)
On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 3:50 PM Nick Bolten <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Hey Vivek et al, let's keep in touch and get those crossings
going. We've got some tools that can help out with getting those
sidewalks connected via crossings.
On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 3:10 PM Michael Reichert
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Hi Vivek et.al <http://et.al>.,
Am 20.09.2017 um 09:20 schrieb Frederik Ramm:
> On 19.09.2017 21:09, Vivek Bansal wrote:
>> The Wiki:
>>
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County,_California/San_Jose_Sidewalk_Import
>
> Let me try to understand this better. The wiki page says
>
> "We recognize we could be creating sidewalk islands since we
aren't
> dealing with crossings or connecting the sidewalks to
streets but most
> routing software doesn't use sidewalks and typically uses
left/right
> tags. Regardless, adding sidewalks will eventually make
things better."
>
> At the same time you are talking about the "pedestrian
network" and
> "fundamental infrastructure mapping". But it isn't a network
if it isn't
> connected, is it? You must be mapping zebra (and other)
crossings too,
> so that actual pedestrian routes can be computed, or else
the use of the
> data you're adding would be limited to walking between
places on the
> same block of houses?
>
> Please confirm that your process will not be limited to
"uploading"
> sidewalks but also ensuring they are properly connected to
what's there
> on OSM already, and thereby (through crossings etc.), also
to each
> other. Otherwise what you are doing is nothing better than
MS Paint for
> maps - or potentially worse, since a pedestrian routing
engine that
> *today*, because of the lack of sidewalks, snaps start and
destination
> to the nearest road and leads the pedestrian along that,
might choose to
> snap to a sidewalk instead and be caught on a routing island.
I seems that you did not understand correctly what Frederik
wanted to
tell you.
If you upload sidewalks as separate ways, they must be
connected with
the existing network in the same changeset which uploads them.
Unfortunately, the data you uploaded already is not connected
to the
remaining network at all. Please fix these thousands of
routing islands
and dead-ends within the next days or revert your import.
Please pause
your import and get more familiar with OSM before you continue.
OpenStreetMap intends to be a routeable data set. Lots of
users fetch
data updates for routing every day, every week or every month
and rely
on us. If you upload broken data, their routing software will
return low
quality results until the next update.
Example of a result which harms the reputation of OSM:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot&route=37.31370%2C-121.75710%3B37.31290%2C-121.75690
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] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
_______________________________________________
Imports mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
_______________________________________________
Imports mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
_______________________________________________
Imports mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
