Re: [OSM-talk-be] Routing in Liège

[Julien Fastré]

Le 14/09/2016 à 12:00, joost schouppe a écrit :
> This example does look wrong to
> me: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/96664072

I have changed this road to tertiary.
> 
> Maybe it would help if Michael would point out some example that look
> wrong to him?

Yes...

> Le 14/09/2016 à 08:12, Marc Gemis a écrit :
>> Here's Michael's answer: I haven't read it thoroughly yet, so I leave
>> the interpretation to each of you.
>> 
>> -
>> Your impression and the two answers make sence to me. It's hard to
>> decide the road classification by aerial view. A look beside to google
>> streetview also doesn't help (and I never would map what I found
>> there).
>> 
>> May I clear some about that overpass-query?
>> It only searches for residential, unclassified and tertiary. Higher
>> road classes are good visible in standard mapstile and lower doesn't
>> interrest in this case. The colours are blue for residential, orange
>> for unclassified and green for tertiary. If you zoom in all the
>> circles get to lines marking the kind of highway. You can move the
>> bbox on the map and start the query again for any area you want. Don't
>> use to big areas avoiding brakedown of query.

Some "big residential" road could be preferred to "little" residential
road in Liege. But, in Liege, the tertiary, secondary and primary roads
should be used and, most of the time, it is possible to use them instead
of "potential unclassified" roads.

>> And reading the post of Julien, it's clear for my why mappers in
>> Belgium use the value residential often not in the way the should
>> according the "leading" english wiki. But discussing about some wiki
>> specials would fill books and we better use the time to correct
>> OSM-data and -wiki.

Yes, I agree, we should correct the wiki page.

Julien




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Routing in Liège

[joost schouppe]

This example does look wrong to me:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/96664072

Maybe it would help if Michael would point out some example that look wrong
to him?

For the rest, in the area shown in the query, I don't see anything wrong
(without knowing the area of course)

2016-09-14 11:53 GMT+02:00 joost schouppe :

> Just a quick overpass-turbo note: the circles you see are just to show
> that there are small ways (which you could easily overlook when zoomed
> out). This is a setting: go to Settings > Map > uncheck "show small
> features as a POI".
>
>


-- 
Joost @
Openstreetmap  |
Twitter  | LinkedIn
 | Meetup

___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Routing in Liège

[joost schouppe]

Just a quick overpass-turbo note: the circles you see are just to show that
there are small ways (which you could easily overlook when zoomed out).
This is a setting: go to Settings > Map > uncheck "show small features as a
POI".
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Routing in Liège

[Marc Gemis]

Here's Michael's answer: I haven't read it thoroughly yet, so I leave
the interpretation to each of you.

-
Your impression and the two answers make sence to me. It's hard to
decide the road classification by aerial view. A look beside to google
streetview also doesn't help (and I never would map what I found
there).

May I clear some about that overpass-query?
It only searches for residential, unclassified and tertiary. Higher
road classes are good visible in standard mapstile and lower doesn't
interrest in this case. The colours are blue for residential, orange
for unclassified and green for tertiary. If you zoom in all the
circles get to lines marking the kind of highway. You can move the
bbox on the map and start the query again for any area you want. Don't
use to big areas avoiding brakedown of query.

Okay, most roads have mainly resident buildings beside, but that's not
the only thing to decide about the category. The function in traffic
use is the leading choice for highway value. If a road with lots of
residential buildings beside is connecting towns, villages or parts of
them and is mainly used that way, mapping as a residential makes no
sence, because good routers (and drivers) should try to avoid them if
they don't are at the start or target of route. I often had this
residential mapping at countryside and got strange routes for my
"fast" scooter profile without using motorway and motorroad. That was
the reason I had a look to it. But the problem exists also for cars as
the thread in Mapfactor's forum shows.

And reading the post of Julien, it's clear for my why mappers in
Belgium use the value residential often not in the way the should
according the "leading" english wiki. But discussing about some wiki
specials would fill books and we better use the time to correct
OSM-data and -wiki.

Hope that helped
Regards and wish you get a nice day
---


On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 5:52 AM, Marc Gemis  wrote:
> André, Julien,
>
> thanks for the replies. I've forwarded them to Michael and let hem
> answer your questions/remarks/concerns.
>
> My impression, based on aerial imagery, was that only a couple of
> streets might be classified incorrectly, But it hard to tell without
> knowing the area.
> As for the circles in Overpass, they are caused by very small (OSM)
> ways. There is a command that you can add to the css of Overpass to
> avoid them, but I leave it to Michael to solve.
>
> regards
>
> m

___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Routing in Liège

[André Pirard]

On 2016-09-14 05:52, Marc Gemis wrote:
> André, Julien,
>
> thanks for the replies. I've forwarded them to Michael and let hem
> answer your questions/remarks/concerns.
>
> My impression, based on aerial imagery, was that only a couple of
> streets might be classified incorrectly, But it hard to tell without
> knowing the area.
> As for the circles in Overpass, they are caused by very small (OSM)
> ways. There is a command that you can add to the css of Overpass to
> avoid them, but I leave it to Michael to solve.
Unfortunately,  trying to route based on administrative classification
is a lost cause.
If we were tweaking it to match usability, someone would soon come to
destroy the work.
My best example is this
.
 
National road N674 !!!
It's a winding narrow road where two lorries can hardly cross each other.
It's bordering a ravine on a great length.
One day, a lorry crumbled the side, fortunately only down a few meters
to the meadow below.
And I once skilfully dodged a van driving much too fast in the sharp bend.
No danger sign at all !!!

I once suggested that objective classification criteria were mapped to
be used for routing.
One which is important and easily mappable from aerial photos is the width.
Straightness can be calculated by the GPS based on topology.
Recommended speed is unhappily more subjective unless we find an
objective measure.
Surface quality too.
I suggested that bouncing could be measured by software using a GSM
accelerometer.

In a town, there is a mesh of major roads that cars follow to travel
inside, not across.
I mentioned boulevards d'Avroy and de la Sauvenière.
Julien mentioned them around place du Marché.
Around the Guillemins, they are avenue E.Digneffe, rue de Fragnée, rue
de Sclessin, rue des Guillemins, rue du Plan Incliné, rue d'Artois &
Fabry & Louvrex, etc.
All those streets could get routing specific tags that no one would disturb.

Cheers

André.









___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Routing in Liège

[Marc Gemis]

André, Julien,

thanks for the replies. I've forwarded them to Michael and let hem
answer your questions/remarks/concerns.

My impression, based on aerial imagery, was that only a couple of
streets might be classified incorrectly, But it hard to tell without
knowing the area.
As for the circles in Overpass, they are caused by very small (OSM)
ways. There is a command that you can add to the css of Overpass to
avoid them, but I leave it to Michael to solve.

regards

m

___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Routing in Liège

[Julien Fastré]

Le 13/09/16 à 20:18, André Pirard a écrit :
> On 2016-09-13 18:21, Marc Gemis wrote:
>> Hallo,
>>
>> I was contacted by a mapper from Germany with whom I worked on turn:lanes.
>> He has to following question, can someone with local knowledge inform
>> us about the road classifications ? I have the impression a lot of
>> streets are indeed residential. Feel free to reply in French, I'll
>> translate it to English for him.
> Hi,
> 
> The overpass map doesn't show Liège but the North of it.
> When run, I can't make sense of what I see.
> Could you get rid of the nodes?
> 
> In Liège, most of the ways are residential, of course.
> You can see not yet mapped buildings by displaying the BE PICC layer.
> But, beside surrounding and access motorways, some ways are suitable for
> slower, through traffic.
> Those are brown on OSM.org and mainly: alongside Meuse and Dérivation,
> rue de l'Yser to Ans, N3, N61, N30, N63, N90. (...?)
> Notably missing the brown status is N671 for carrying the heavy traffic
> in direction Namur.
> (The rule is that brown, main National, primary roads are 1 or 2 digits,
> but 671 certainly deserves that).
> Beside that, there are yellow, secondary wider streets bordered by
> buildings like Boulevard de la Sauvenière that can be used for faster
> moving inside town but isn't recommended for traveling through.
> 
> I'm not mapping Liège and I don't know every small streets of it
> everywhere, but I can comment specifics like N671 if no one else stands
> up in this thread.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> André.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>>
>>
>> [snipped]
>> Now I want ask you about another problem.
>> Coming from here
>> http://forum.mapfactor.com/discussion/comment/13515#Comment_13515
>> I checked Liege to find out the mapping of roads there:
>> http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/imn
>> My guess is, that unclassified is used wrong there and that is the
>> reason for strange routings. My opinion is that unclassified as the
>> lowest kind of connecting roads do not end at city borders and have or
>> need common connection to same or higher class inside of towns or
>> villages. For me routers should avoid residentials and lower as much
>> as possible. Do you have any idea to check and correct this in Liege
>> to make routing better?
>>
>> If there are any questions, please ask.
>>
>> Regards
>> Michael aka hurdygurdyman
>>

Hi,

I had a look at the link in overpass-turbo and it seems to me that it is
quite good according to this:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Belgium/Conventions/Highways

But I do agree that some road, like En féronstrée
(http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/37341977) et Hors Chateau
(http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/62360375) or rue de la Régence
(http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/281936236), which count a lot of
house, could also be considered as "connection to same or higher class
inside of towns or villages".

But, in the wiki, unclassified road are described as :

> Small paved ways, no connecting roads, that typically are located in
rural areas. Houses/building are exceptional.

And, on the page Tag=highway=unclassified :
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dunclassified

> The tag highway=unclassified is used for minor public roads typically at the 
> lowest level of the interconnecting grid network. Unclassified roads have 
> lower importance in the road network than tertiary roads, and are not 
> residential streets or agricultural tracks. highway=unclassified should be 
> used for roads used for local traffic and used to connect other towns, 
> villages or hamlets. Unclassified roads are considered usable by motor cars. 


So I wonder if the wikiprojectBelgium is wrong for this description...

Julien



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Routing in Liège

[André Pirard]

On 2016-09-13 18:21, Marc Gemis wrote:
> Hallo,
>
> I was contacted by a mapper from Germany with whom I worked on turn:lanes.
> He has to following question, can someone with local knowledge inform
> us about the road classifications ? I have the impression a lot of
> streets are indeed residential. Feel free to reply in French, I'll
> translate it to English for him.
Hi,

The overpass map doesn't show Liège but the North of it.
When run, I can't make sense of what I see.
Could you get rid of the nodes?

In Liège, most of the ways are residential, of course.
You can see not yet mapped buildings by displaying the BE PICC layer.
But, beside surrounding and access motorways, some ways are suitable for
slower, through traffic.
Those are brown on OSM.org and mainly: alongside Meuse and Dérivation,
rue de l'Yser to Ans, N3, N61, N30, N63, N90. (...?)
Notably missing the brown status is N671 for carrying the heavy traffic
in direction Namur.
(The rule is that brown, main National, primary roads are 1 or 2 digits,
but 671 certainly deserves that).
Beside that, there are yellow, secondary wider streets bordered by
buildings like Boulevard de la Sauvenière that can be used for faster
moving inside town but isn't recommended for traveling through.

I'm not mapping Liège and I don't know every small streets of it
everywhere, but I can comment specifics like N671 if no one else stands
up in this thread.

Cheers

André.




>
>
> [snipped]
> Now I want ask you about another problem.
> Coming from here
> http://forum.mapfactor.com/discussion/comment/13515#Comment_13515
> I checked Liege to find out the mapping of roads there:
> http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/imn
> My guess is, that unclassified is used wrong there and that is the
> reason for strange routings. My opinion is that unclassified as the
> lowest kind of connecting roads do not end at city borders and have or
> need common connection to same or higher class inside of towns or
> villages. For me routers should avoid residentials and lower as much
> as possible. Do you have any idea to check and correct this in Liege
> to make routing better?
>
> If there are any questions, please ask.
>
> Regards
> Michael aka hurdygurdyman
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

[OSM-talk-be] Routing in Liège

[Marc Gemis]

Hallo,

I was contacted by a mapper from Germany with whom I worked on turn:lanes.
He has to following question, can someone with local knowledge inform
us about the road classifications ? I have the impression a lot of
streets are indeed residential. Feel free to reply in French, I'll
translate it to English for him.


[snipped]
Now I want ask you about another problem.
Coming from here
http://forum.mapfactor.com/discussion/comment/13515#Comment_13515
I checked Liege to find out the mapping of roads there:
http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/imn
My guess is, that unclassified is used wrong there and that is the
reason for strange routings. My opinion is that unclassified as the
lowest kind of connecting roads do not end at city borders and have or
need common connection to same or higher class inside of towns or
villages. For me routers should avoid residentials and lower as much
as possible. Do you have any idea to check and correct this in Liege
to make routing better?

If there are any questions, please ask.

Regards
Michael aka hurdygurdyman

___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be