Re: [Tagging] Through_route next steps
You are correct, we are talking about unclassified and tertiary roads. Although this problem also occurs on secondary, primary and trunk roads, a classification is a measure of importance and not always quality. But where did the turning lane come from? or even lanes in many cases? Here is an example of why this tag is needed, and obviously support from routers. http://osrm.at/3Hs This route misses two important left turn instructions, the instructions should be Turn left onto B5065 in both cases. Here is the first junction http://goo.gl/maps/ouXTC and the second, which is a very definite left turn, but easily missed as routers assume you are continuing on the same road, without the instruction anyone following instructions is likely to carry straight on http://goo.gl/maps/DSDbt Excellent examples Phil. I hope to redo this so may well use those Thanks Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Through_route next steps
On 18/06/2013 16:45, News wrote: You are correct, we are talking about unclassified and tertiary roads. Although this problem also occurs on secondary, primary and trunk roads, a classification is a measure of importance and not always quality. But where did the turning lane come from? or even lanes in many cases? Here is an example of why this tag is needed, and obviously support from routers. http://osrm.at/3Hs This route misses two important left turn instructions, the instructions should be Turn left onto B5065 in both cases. Here is the first junction http://goo.gl/maps/ouXTC and the second, which is a very definite left turn, but easily missed as routers assume you are continuing on the same road, without the instruction anyone following instructions is likely to carry straight on http://goo.gl/maps/DSDbt Excellent examples Phil. I hope to redo this so may well use those Both examples could probably be addressed by give_way nodes on the ways that are not the 'through route'? -- Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Through_route next steps
On Tue, 2013-06-18 at 16:50 +0100, Steve Doerr wrote: On 18/06/2013 16:45, News wrote: You are correct, we are talking about unclassified and tertiary roads. Although this problem also occurs on secondary, primary and trunk roads, a classification is a measure of importance and not always quality. But where did the turning lane come from? or even lanes in many cases? Here is an example of why this tag is needed, and obviously support from routers. http://osrm.at/3Hs This route misses two important left turn instructions, the instructions should be Turn left onto B5065 in both cases. Here is the first junction http://goo.gl/maps/ouXTC and the second, which is a very definite left turn, but easily missed as routers assume you are continuing on the same road, without the instruction anyone following instructions is likely to carry straight on http://goo.gl/maps/DSDbt Excellent examples Phil. I hope to redo this so may well use those Both examples could probably be addressed by give_way nodes on the ways that are not the 'through route'? Maybe, but not as concise as a relation and both require routers to interpret and use the information. Adding give_way nodes today will not suddenly fix the erroneous routing instructions. Commercial satnavs have the same issue and this is an opportunity for us to be better. Phil (trigpoint) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Through_route next steps
On Tue, 2013-06-18 at 16:45 +0100, News wrote: You are correct, we are talking about unclassified and tertiary roads. Although this problem also occurs on secondary, primary and trunk roads, a classification is a measure of importance and not always quality. But where did the turning lane come from? or even lanes in many cases? Here is an example of why this tag is needed, and obviously support from routers. http://osrm.at/3Hs This route misses two important left turn instructions, the instructions should be Turn left onto B5065 in both cases. Here is the first junction http://goo.gl/maps/ouXTC and the second, which is a very definite left turn, but easily missed as routers assume you are continuing on the same road, without the instruction anyone following instructions is likely to carry straight on http://goo.gl/maps/DSDbt Excellent examples Phil. I hope to redo this so may well use those I can provide some photos to replace the streetview if it will help. Phil ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Through_route next steps
For my Garmin both B5065 examples are routed correct by Mapsource. If the OSRM heuristics are wrong, than OSRM should get a ticket to make its engine better. Cheers, Johan 2013/6/18 Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk On Tue, 2013-06-18 at 16:45 +0100, News wrote: You are correct, we are talking about unclassified and tertiary roads. Although this problem also occurs on secondary, primary and trunk roads, a classification is a measure of importance and not always quality. But where did the turning lane come from? or even lanes in many cases? Here is an example of why this tag is needed, and obviously support from routers. http://osrm.at/3Hs This route misses two important left turn instructions, the instructions should be Turn left onto B5065 in both cases. Here is the first junction http://goo.gl/maps/ouXTC and the second, which is a very definite left turn, but easily missed as routers assume you are continuing on the same road, without the instruction anyone following instructions is likely to carry straight on http://goo.gl/maps/DSDbt Excellent examples Phil. I hope to redo this so may well use those I can provide some photos to replace the streetview if it will help. Phil ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Through_route next steps
On Tue, 2013-06-18 at 19:23 +0200, Johan C wrote: For my Garmin both B5065 examples are routed correct by Mapsource. If the OSRM heuristics are wrong, than OSRM should get a ticket to make its engine better. That is just one of many examples, does this one work? http://osrm.at/3Is http://goo.gl/maps/tHHkf It should give a turn right or turn slightly right instruction, the through route continues onto Main Street. This is the one reported by a Scobbler user that set me off on this campaign. Phil (trigpoint) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Through_route next steps
No, it doesn't. Two reasons for that: 1. the road names in your example are wrong, see: http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/opendata/viewer/ . If the correct road names are applied, the routing engine will know that one road is connected through an interchange to another road 2. it's important to use Bing here to map the roads correctly: Markfield Lane should be in an angle of 90 degrees to Botcheston road. Any routing engine algorithm will turn 90 degrees into 'left' or 'right'. Cheers, Johan 2013/6/18 Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk On Tue, 2013-06-18 at 19:23 +0200, Johan C wrote: For my Garmin both B5065 examples are routed correct by Mapsource. If the OSRM heuristics are wrong, than OSRM should get a ticket to make its engine better. That is just one of many examples, does this one work? http://osrm.at/3Is http://goo.gl/maps/tHHkf It should give a turn right or turn slightly right instruction, the through route continues onto Main Street. This is the one reported by a Scobbler user that set me off on this campaign. Phil (trigpoint) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Through_route next steps
On 16.06.2013 22:50, Rob Nickerson wrote: @Rob: Did you ever try to describe the junction with the Lane and Road Attributes? No, I didn't. And as I've been busy with organising SOTM I didn't even fully read the tag proposal (hence I didn't vote). I hope you agree that my general comment about reading through and attempting to address the critical points on the through_route proposal is the right way forward. Yes, this may mean dropping the tag proposal altogether and working with a different tag instead. In my opinion, what the through_route tag was aiming to do is still a good idea. I see it as more important for small unclassified country roads, rather than multi-lane highways. Here in the UK many small historic rural roads can have tight bends and often, if there is a connecting road, a satnav will give an instruction to turn right/left when one is not in fact needed (or not give an instruction when one is needed). Now, I get your problem. We are talking about unclassified roads (no ref) right ? Stiil the Lane and Road Attributes should work as you can tag the through_route and the turning_lanes which might be also the single lane leading straight and allowing a turn. As you tag the direction on the turns (left/right) the router could get infos about the turns. fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Through_route next steps
On Mon, 2013-06-17 at 17:35 +0200, fly wrote: On 16.06.2013 22:50, Rob Nickerson wrote: @Rob: Did you ever try to describe the junction with the Lane and Road Attributes? No, I didn't. And as I've been busy with organising SOTM I didn't even fully read the tag proposal (hence I didn't vote). I hope you agree that my general comment about reading through and attempting to address the critical points on the through_route proposal is the right way forward. Yes, this may mean dropping the tag proposal altogether and working with a different tag instead. In my opinion, what the through_route tag was aiming to do is still a good idea. I see it as more important for small unclassified country roads, rather than multi-lane highways. Here in the UK many small historic rural roads can have tight bends and often, if there is a connecting road, a satnav will give an instruction to turn right/left when one is not in fact needed (or not give an instruction when one is needed). Now, I get your problem. We are talking about unclassified roads (no ref) right ? Stiil the Lane and Road Attributes should work as you can tag the through_route and the turning_lanes which might be also the single lane leading straight and allowing a turn. As you tag the direction on the turns (left/right) the router could get infos about the turns. You are correct, we are talking about unclassified and tertiary roads. Although this problem also occurs on secondary, primary and trunk roads, a classification is a measure of importance and not always quality. But where did the turning lane come from? or even lanes in many cases? Here is an example of why this tag is needed, and obviously support from routers. http://osrm.at/3Hs This route misses two important left turn instructions, the instructions should be Turn left onto B5065 in both cases. Here is the first junction http://goo.gl/maps/ouXTC and the second, which is a very definite left turn, but easily missed as routers assume you are continuing on the same road, without the instruction anyone following instructions is likely to carry straight on http://goo.gl/maps/DSDbt And again further along the route a vital right turn is missed. http://osrm.at/3Ht http://goo.gl/maps/bfuaS Roads were not planned, they do not go in straight lines and have evolved over time and we need a means to reflect this and provide meaningful information. Phil (trigpoint) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Through_route next steps
@Rob: Did you ever try to describe the junction with the Lane and Road Attributes? No, I didn't. And as I've been busy with organising SOTM I didn't even fully read the tag proposal (hence I didn't vote). I hope you agree that my general comment about reading through and attempting to address the critical points on the through_route proposal is the right way forward. Yes, this may mean dropping the tag proposal altogether and working with a different tag instead. In my opinion, what the through_route tag was aiming to do is still a good idea. I see it as more important for small unclassified country roads, rather than multi-lane highways. Here in the UK many small historic rural roads can have tight bends and often, if there is a connecting road, a satnav will give an instruction to turn right/left when one is not in fact needed (or not give an instruction when one is needed). Best, Rob ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Through_route next steps
Hi, The next steps with any tag proposal that reaches a hung jury is to read through the comments and update the proposal to address the issues raised. In this case I think the wiki page needs to be clearer about what this tag is for (a few photo/aerial image examples would help), and how it differs from other tags. Let me know if you want a helping hand. Rob ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Through_route next steps
Hi Rob, Am Samstag, 15. Juni 2013, 13:33:24 schrieb Rob Nickerson: The next steps with any tag proposal that reaches a hung jury is to read through the comments and update the proposal to address the issues raised. In this case I think the wiki page needs to be clearer about what this tag is for (a few photo/aerial image examples would help), and how it differs from other tags. I don't think the rejection of the proposal is based on missing illustration. In my eyes, the proposal almost completely misses the underlying problem: the representation of data in OSM is unsuitable for inferring turn instructions. The closest thing to a junction in OSM right now is a node: if there are three or more points connected to a node, we call it a junction. Let's talk a bit about that node: how should we infer routing instructions from the constellation of ways connected to that node? Should we take the classification of the road into account? Most OSM routing programs are doing an exceptionally bad job at this, and yet they are not to blame; since the only way they are actually able to work is by applying heuristics, and the reason for that is simple: there are no conventions *at all*. The second problem is that a junction is not necessarily node-like at all. Think about divided highways. Or think about links, and you'll soon realize that turns can have an extent as well. A third aspect of the problem is that even if you are perfectly able to deduce appropriate turn instructions from the geometry, you may still end up with turn instructions that differ from what the signs say. Deviating from the signs is probably not a good idea unless your plan is to confuse the user. Eckhart ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Through_route next steps
On 15.06.2013 17:00, Eckhart Wörner wrote: Hi Rob, Am Samstag, 15. Juni 2013, 13:33:24 schrieb Rob Nickerson: The next steps with any tag proposal that reaches a hung jury is to read through the comments and update the proposal to address the issues raised. In this case I think the wiki page needs to be clearer about what this tag is for (a few photo/aerial image examples would help), and how it differs from other tags. I don't think the rejection of the proposal is based on missing illustration. In my eyes, the proposal almost completely misses the underlying problem: the representation of data in OSM is unsuitable for inferring turn instructions. The closest thing to a junction in OSM right now is a node: if there are three or more points connected to a node, we call it a junction. Let's talk a bit about that node: how should we infer routing instructions from the constellation of ways connected to that node? Should we take the classification of the road into account? Most OSM routing programs are doing an exceptionally bad job at this, and yet they are not to blame; since the only way they are actually able to work is by applying heuristics, and the reason for that is simple: there are no conventions *at all*. The second problem is that a junction is not necessarily node-like at all. Think about divided highways. Or think about links, and you'll soon realize that turns can have an extent as well. A third aspect of the problem is that even if you are perfectly able to deduce appropriate turn instructions from the geometry, you may still end up with turn instructions that differ from what the signs say. Deviating from the signs is probably not a good idea unless your plan is to confuse the user. +1 @Rob: Did you ever try to describe the junction with the Lane and Road Attributes [1] ? This scheme should allow to indicate the proper lanes to take the turn from and should solve your motorway example without turn lanes. fly [1] https://josm.openstreetmap.de/wiki/Styles/Lane_and_Road_Attributes ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
