Re: [mkgmap-dev] Turn Restrictions using three ways - design guide for OSM mappers?
Hi blc, mkgmap checks restriction relations for obvious formal errors like missing "from" ways or a "via" node that is not at the end of the way. If the relation is formally correct mkgmap tries to translate it as good as possible. Nothing in OSM is directly supported by the Garmin IMG format, they are completely different and that's the reason for the tool mkgmap. So, if you think that turn restrictions with "via"-ways are more likely wrong than right I may add an option to ignore them completely. Gerd Von: mkgmap-dev im Auftrag von blc Gesendet: Freitag, 11. Oktober 2019 08:35 An: Development list for mkgmap Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] Turn Restrictions using three ways - design guide for OSM mappers? On Wed, 9 Oct 2019, Gerd Petermann wrote: > I still think both restrictions are probably not correctly mapped, but > that's a different story now. Thanks, this is what I wanted to know, if the original mapper made a mistake or not - I'm concerned because of the apparent handling discrepancy between different tools. But what I didn't know before this is that the Garmin doesn't directly support the only-X construct. This changes my opinion about this. > I try to find a way to add the additional restrictiions to the IMG file. No worries, I just wanted to make sure that if anyone fixes OSM data due to a warning in mkgmap that it is a real violation of methodology (like a restriction relation that was missing members/less than 3 members), not because of a Garmin limitation of some sort. I see that there was a code change proposal, I wish I could run it but I don't have the capability to do so at this time. However from the programmer side of me I'm a bit concerned about handling changing only-X -> multiple no-Y's because of potential errors in mapping causing a huge bloat of erroneous restrictions. At this point I wouldn't touch the multiple via ways (relation having two or more vias ways) even though it is also "supported" by OSM data, not sure if it should be handled, as it may be an error. I've also seen some fairly complex interchanges that have these via-as-way and hope that the code does the right thing every time. I'd probably only limit this to one way-via only-X restrictions if anything - if there is any uncertainty on how to handle this, just leave it the way it was! Thanks for helping me understand this better, I didn't expect any code edits, especially if the Garmin doesn't support these directly. ___ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev ___ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
Re: [mkgmap-dev] Turn Restrictions using three ways - design guide for OSM mappers?
On Wed, 9 Oct 2019, Gerd Petermann wrote: I still think both restrictions are probably not correctly mapped, but that's a different story now. Thanks, this is what I wanted to know, if the original mapper made a mistake or not - I'm concerned because of the apparent handling discrepancy between different tools. But what I didn't know before this is that the Garmin doesn't directly support the only-X construct. This changes my opinion about this. I try to find a way to add the additional restrictiions to the IMG file. No worries, I just wanted to make sure that if anyone fixes OSM data due to a warning in mkgmap that it is a real violation of methodology (like a restriction relation that was missing members/less than 3 members), not because of a Garmin limitation of some sort. I see that there was a code change proposal, I wish I could run it but I don't have the capability to do so at this time. However from the programmer side of me I'm a bit concerned about handling changing only-X -> multiple no-Y's because of potential errors in mapping causing a huge bloat of erroneous restrictions. At this point I wouldn't touch the multiple via ways (relation having two or more vias ways) even though it is also "supported" by OSM data, not sure if it should be handled, as it may be an error. I've also seen some fairly complex interchanges that have these via-as-way and hope that the code does the right thing every time. I'd probably only limit this to one way-via only-X restrictions if anything - if there is any uncertainty on how to handle this, just leave it the way it was! Thanks for helping me understand this better, I didn't expect any code edits, especially if the Garmin doesn't support these directly. ___ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
Re: [mkgmap-dev] Turn Restrictions using three ways - design guide for OSM mappers?
Hi all, sorry again... Gerd Petermann wrote > I fear this is currently not implemented in mkgmap, it more or less > translates the relation into a no_u_turn restriction with way 161220789 as > "to" way and thus > allows a right turn from way 172716357 via node 1732097310 to way > 161220701. I just noticed that my downloaded data contains two very similar restrictions in the area (2155309 and 2155310), and I confused them. So, the above applies to 2155310, not 2155309. I still think both restrictions are probably not correctly mapped, but that's a different story now. I try to find a way to add the additional restrictiions to the IMG file. Gerd -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Mkgmap-Development-f5324443.html ___ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
Re: [mkgmap-dev] Turn Restrictions using three ways - design guide for OSM mappers?
Sorry, forgot to add the link for [1]: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Turn-restrictions-with-role-via-ways-tp5799637.html Gerd Von: mkgmap-dev im Auftrag von Gerd Petermann Gesendet: Dienstag, 8. Oktober 2019 08:49 An: Development list for mkgmap Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] Turn Restrictions using three ways - design guide for OSM mappers? Hi blc, maybe the misunderstanding is on my side. I've implemented the support for via-ways in 2014 [1]. For such a no_* restriction there is no way to express the same situation with via-nodes. The Garmin IMG format only knows restrictions which forbid to follow a certain list of nodes in a given order. So, I tend to interpret OSM restrictions like that and for an OSM "no" restriction this works fine. I searched the tagging list and found http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/mandatory-restriction-with-via-way-as-members-tp5924100.html Following this thread the relation 2155309 means: If you are on "from" way 223720277 you must use the "via" way followed by the "to" way. I fear this is currently not implemented in mkgmap, it more or less translates the relation into a no_u_turn restriction with way 161220789 as "to" way and thus allows a right turn from way 172716357 via node 1732097310 to way 161220701. IIGTR the code in mkgmap should be changed to add more restrictions in the IMG data... Gerd Von: mkgmap-dev im Auftrag von blc Gesendet: Dienstag, 8. Oktober 2019 06:05 An: Development list for mkgmap Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] Turn Restrictions using three ways - design guide for OSM mappers? Still having a bit of misunderstanding, I think. Maybe take a look at relation 2155309 which also triggers the warning. https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2155309 Here there appears to be no other relations describing this turn other than the one more that prohibits left turns on the right turn ramp which is only tangentally related. My take is that the mapper decided to write it this way for some reason, perhaps there's a sign that says such, I don't know. While this too can be written as two TRs: - one to prohibit right turns - one to prohibit U-turns. iD even seems to understand this way-as-via does both with just one restriction relation, you can click and mouse over the voodoo doll sidebar and it seems to understand the original mapper's intent. In fact I think you can make iD can create way-as-via only relations. So what should a mapper have done here from the get go? Should they have omitted it completely? What about a QA fixer? Or should these warnings simply be ignored -- there are hundreds of them in the USA. Thanks, and sorry for any misunderstandings. On Sat, 5 Oct 2019, Gerd Petermann wrote: > Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2019 14:31:29 + > From: Gerd Petermann > Reply-To: Development list for mkgmap > To: Development list for mkgmap > Subject: Re: [mkgmap-dev] Turn Restrictions using three ways - design guide > for OSM mappers? > > Hi blc, > > I meant the relation 2256354 is obsolete, wrong, or meaningless, whatever you > want to call it. I can't think of any situation in which a only-* restriction > with a via way makes sense. Can you give one? What would be restricted by > such a restriction? > > Gerd > > > Von: mkgmap-dev im Auftrag von blc > > Gesendet: Samstag, 5. Oktober 2019 16:12 > An: Development list for mkgmap > Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] Turn Restrictions using three ways - design guide > for OSM mappers? > > Gerd, > > Ahhh... Now I understand what you mean. I think you initially mean > "redundant" versus "obsolete" - I was confused by "obsolete" thinking that > the restriction should use a different method due to an outdated > methodology. > > For the example, turn restriction 3843893 was the one that made the > initial turn restriction 2256354 redundant. If 3843893 had not been > there, what would the suggestion be? > > I'd suspect that relation 3843894 is still needed regardless as the > startpoint is different. > > Thanks > > On Sat, 5 Oct 2019, Gerd Petermann wrote: > >> Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2019 13:31:09 + >> From: Gerd Petermann >> Reply-To: Development list for mkgmap >> To: Development list for mkgmap >> Subject: Re: [mkgmap-dev] Turn Restrictions using three ways - design guide >> for OSM mappers? >> >> Hi blc, >> >> there are already normal restrictions [1] which look correct to me, so as I >> said before this one is obsolete. I think it should be removed. >> Besides that I would not add restrictions without local knowledge or other >> allowed sources
Re: [mkgmap-dev] Turn Restrictions using three ways - design guide for OSM mappers?
Hi blc, maybe the misunderstanding is on my side. I've implemented the support for via-ways in 2014 [1]. For such a no_* restriction there is no way to express the same situation with via-nodes. The Garmin IMG format only knows restrictions which forbid to follow a certain list of nodes in a given order. So, I tend to interpret OSM restrictions like that and for an OSM "no" restriction this works fine. I searched the tagging list and found http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/mandatory-restriction-with-via-way-as-members-tp5924100.html Following this thread the relation 2155309 means: If you are on "from" way 223720277 you must use the "via" way followed by the "to" way. I fear this is currently not implemented in mkgmap, it more or less translates the relation into a no_u_turn restriction with way 161220789 as "to" way and thus allows a right turn from way 172716357 via node 1732097310 to way 161220701. IIGTR the code in mkgmap should be changed to add more restrictions in the IMG data... Gerd Von: mkgmap-dev im Auftrag von blc Gesendet: Dienstag, 8. Oktober 2019 06:05 An: Development list for mkgmap Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] Turn Restrictions using three ways - design guide for OSM mappers? Still having a bit of misunderstanding, I think. Maybe take a look at relation 2155309 which also triggers the warning. https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2155309 Here there appears to be no other relations describing this turn other than the one more that prohibits left turns on the right turn ramp which is only tangentally related. My take is that the mapper decided to write it this way for some reason, perhaps there's a sign that says such, I don't know. While this too can be written as two TRs: - one to prohibit right turns - one to prohibit U-turns. iD even seems to understand this way-as-via does both with just one restriction relation, you can click and mouse over the voodoo doll sidebar and it seems to understand the original mapper's intent. In fact I think you can make iD can create way-as-via only relations. So what should a mapper have done here from the get go? Should they have omitted it completely? What about a QA fixer? Or should these warnings simply be ignored -- there are hundreds of them in the USA. Thanks, and sorry for any misunderstandings. On Sat, 5 Oct 2019, Gerd Petermann wrote: > Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2019 14:31:29 + > From: Gerd Petermann > Reply-To: Development list for mkgmap > To: Development list for mkgmap > Subject: Re: [mkgmap-dev] Turn Restrictions using three ways - design guide > for OSM mappers? > > Hi blc, > > I meant the relation 2256354 is obsolete, wrong, or meaningless, whatever you > want to call it. I can't think of any situation in which a only-* restriction > with a via way makes sense. Can you give one? What would be restricted by > such a restriction? > > Gerd > > > Von: mkgmap-dev im Auftrag von blc > > Gesendet: Samstag, 5. Oktober 2019 16:12 > An: Development list for mkgmap > Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] Turn Restrictions using three ways - design guide > for OSM mappers? > > Gerd, > > Ahhh... Now I understand what you mean. I think you initially mean > "redundant" versus "obsolete" - I was confused by "obsolete" thinking that > the restriction should use a different method due to an outdated > methodology. > > For the example, turn restriction 3843893 was the one that made the > initial turn restriction 2256354 redundant. If 3843893 had not been > there, what would the suggestion be? > > I'd suspect that relation 3843894 is still needed regardless as the > startpoint is different. > > Thanks > > On Sat, 5 Oct 2019, Gerd Petermann wrote: > >> Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2019 13:31:09 + >> From: Gerd Petermann >> Reply-To: Development list for mkgmap >> To: Development list for mkgmap >> Subject: Re: [mkgmap-dev] Turn Restrictions using three ways - design guide >> for OSM mappers? >> >> Hi blc, >> >> there are already normal restrictions [1] which look correct to me, so as I >> said before this one is obsolete. I think it should be removed. >> Besides that I would not add restrictions without local knowledge or other >> allowed sources. >> >> Gerd >> [1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3843893 >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3843894 >> >> >> Von: mkgmap-dev im Auftrag von blc >> >> Gesendet: Samstag, 5. Oktober 2019 08:53 >> An: Development list for mkgmap >> Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] Turn Re
Re: [mkgmap-dev] Turn Restrictions using three ways - design guide for OSM mappers?
Still having a bit of misunderstanding, I think. Maybe take a look at relation 2155309 which also triggers the warning. https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2155309 Here there appears to be no other relations describing this turn other than the one more that prohibits left turns on the right turn ramp which is only tangentally related. My take is that the mapper decided to write it this way for some reason, perhaps there's a sign that says such, I don't know. While this too can be written as two TRs: - one to prohibit right turns - one to prohibit U-turns. iD even seems to understand this way-as-via does both with just one restriction relation, you can click and mouse over the voodoo doll sidebar and it seems to understand the original mapper's intent. In fact I think you can make iD can create way-as-via only relations. So what should a mapper have done here from the get go? Should they have omitted it completely? What about a QA fixer? Or should these warnings simply be ignored -- there are hundreds of them in the USA. Thanks, and sorry for any misunderstandings. On Sat, 5 Oct 2019, Gerd Petermann wrote: Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2019 14:31:29 + From: Gerd Petermann Reply-To: Development list for mkgmap To: Development list for mkgmap Subject: Re: [mkgmap-dev] Turn Restrictions using three ways - design guide for OSM mappers? Hi blc, I meant the relation 2256354 is obsolete, wrong, or meaningless, whatever you want to call it. I can't think of any situation in which a only-* restriction with a via way makes sense. Can you give one? What would be restricted by such a restriction? Gerd Von: mkgmap-dev im Auftrag von blc Gesendet: Samstag, 5. Oktober 2019 16:12 An: Development list for mkgmap Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] Turn Restrictions using three ways - design guide for OSM mappers? Gerd, Ahhh... Now I understand what you mean. I think you initially mean "redundant" versus "obsolete" - I was confused by "obsolete" thinking that the restriction should use a different method due to an outdated methodology. For the example, turn restriction 3843893 was the one that made the initial turn restriction 2256354 redundant. If 3843893 had not been there, what would the suggestion be? I'd suspect that relation 3843894 is still needed regardless as the startpoint is different. Thanks On Sat, 5 Oct 2019, Gerd Petermann wrote: Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2019 13:31:09 + From: Gerd Petermann Reply-To: Development list for mkgmap To: Development list for mkgmap Subject: Re: [mkgmap-dev] Turn Restrictions using three ways - design guide for OSM mappers? Hi blc, there are already normal restrictions [1] which look correct to me, so as I said before this one is obsolete. I think it should be removed. Besides that I would not add restrictions without local knowledge or other allowed sources. Gerd [1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3843893 https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3843894 Von: mkgmap-dev im Auftrag von blc Gesendet: Samstag, 5. Oktober 2019 08:53 An: Development list for mkgmap Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] Turn Restrictions using three ways - design guide for OSM mappers? Gerd, Thanks for the reply. So it looks like it's still being handled, but would you say that these should be changed in OSM? It seems a bit strange that if you're on way A, you must travel through way B and get to way C, but indeed it is true that if you weren't allowed to make any turn at the point between A and B (and B and C), you'd get the same result -- is this the prefered way of denoting such? For this particular example in OSM I suspect the mapper did not want to allow right turns at the intersection (even if it's not illegal) and hence wrote the restriction as an only left way-way-way instead of a way-point-way no right turn, perhaps because of either a sign or the paintings on the road and you can't make an "only left turn" on the first intersection of the dual carriageway because that's the wrong direction. How should this particular intersection be restricted from travel to not emit warnings? Adding that no right turn at the first intersection would probably have the effect, but I've seen a lot of these way-way-ways around (mostly dealing with complex dual carriageway intersections between multiple roads) and wonder if it's worth "fixing" them, or should these warnings be simply ignored for the most part? Thanks! On Sat, 5 Oct 2019, Gerd Petermann wrote: Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2019 05:43:56 + From: Gerd Petermann Reply-To: Development list for mkgmap To: "mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk" Subject: Re: [mkgmap-dev] Turn Restrictions using three ways - design guide for OSM mappers? Hi blc, the code that produces these warnings is this:
Re: [mkgmap-dev] Turn Restrictions using three ways - design guide for OSM mappers?
Hi blc,
I meant the relation 2256354 is obsolete, wrong, or meaningless, whatever you
want to call it. I can't think of any situation in which a only-* restriction
with a via way makes sense. Can you give one? What would be restricted by such
a restriction?
Gerd
Von: mkgmap-dev im Auftrag von blc
Gesendet: Samstag, 5. Oktober 2019 16:12
An: Development list for mkgmap
Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] Turn Restrictions using three ways - design guide for
OSM mappers?
Gerd,
Ahhh... Now I understand what you mean. I think you initially mean
"redundant" versus "obsolete" - I was confused by "obsolete" thinking that
the restriction should use a different method due to an outdated
methodology.
For the example, turn restriction 3843893 was the one that made the
initial turn restriction 2256354 redundant. If 3843893 had not been
there, what would the suggestion be?
I'd suspect that relation 3843894 is still needed regardless as the
startpoint is different.
Thanks
On Sat, 5 Oct 2019, Gerd Petermann wrote:
> Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2019 13:31:09 +
> From: Gerd Petermann
> Reply-To: Development list for mkgmap
> To: Development list for mkgmap
> Subject: Re: [mkgmap-dev] Turn Restrictions using three ways - design guide
> for OSM mappers?
>
> Hi blc,
>
> there are already normal restrictions [1] which look correct to me, so as I
> said before this one is obsolete. I think it should be removed.
> Besides that I would not add restrictions without local knowledge or other
> allowed sources.
>
> Gerd
> [1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3843893
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3843894
>
>
> Von: mkgmap-dev im Auftrag von blc
>
> Gesendet: Samstag, 5. Oktober 2019 08:53
> An: Development list for mkgmap
> Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] Turn Restrictions using three ways - design guide
> for OSM mappers?
>
> Gerd,
>
> Thanks for the reply.
>
> So it looks like it's still being handled, but would you say that these
> should be changed in OSM?
>
> It seems a bit strange that if you're on way A, you must travel through
> way B and get to way C, but indeed it is true that if you weren't allowed
> to make any turn at the point between A and B (and B and C), you'd get the
> same result -- is this the prefered way of denoting such?
>
> For this particular example in OSM I suspect the mapper did not
> want to allow right turns at the intersection (even if it's not
> illegal) and hence wrote the restriction as an only left way-way-way
> instead of a way-point-way no right turn, perhaps because of either a sign
> or the paintings on the road and you can't make an "only left turn" on the
> first intersection of the dual carriageway because that's the wrong
> direction.
>
> How should this particular intersection be restricted from travel to not
> emit warnings? Adding that no right turn at the first intersection
> would probably have the effect, but I've seen a lot of these way-way-ways
> around (mostly dealing with complex dual carriageway intersections between
> multiple roads) and wonder if it's worth "fixing" them, or should these
> warnings be simply ignored for the most part?
>
> Thanks!
>
> On Sat, 5 Oct 2019, Gerd Petermann wrote:
>
>> Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2019 05:43:56 +
>> From: Gerd Petermann
>> Reply-To: Development list for mkgmap
>> To: "mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk"
>> Subject: Re: [mkgmap-dev] Turn Restrictions using three ways - design guide
>> for OSM mappers?
>>
>> Hi blc,
>>
>> the code that produces these warnings is this:
>>if (valid && !viaWays.isEmpty() &&
>> restriction.startsWith("only")){
>>log.warn(messagePrefix, "check: 'via' way(s) are used
>> in",restriction,"restriction");
>>}
>>
>> So, mkgmap considers them valid, but dubious. I think that's what they are.
>> The restriction says something like
>> "when you want to travel from way A via way B to way C you MUST travel from
>> A via B to C"
>> What kind of restriction is that? In my eyes, the given example is
>> completely obsolete.
>> On the other hand, a "no-" restriction with via way(s) means
>> It is not allowed to go from A to C via B. This cannot be expressed with a
>> single via node.
>>
>> Hope that helps?
>>
>> Gerd
>>
>>
>> Von: mkgmap-dev im Auftrag von blc
>&g
Re: [mkgmap-dev] Turn Restrictions using three ways - design guide for OSM mappers?
Gerd,
Ahhh... Now I understand what you mean. I think you initially mean
"redundant" versus "obsolete" - I was confused by "obsolete" thinking that
the restriction should use a different method due to an outdated
methodology.
For the example, turn restriction 3843893 was the one that made the
initial turn restriction 2256354 redundant. If 3843893 had not been
there, what would the suggestion be?
I'd suspect that relation 3843894 is still needed regardless as the
startpoint is different.
Thanks
On Sat, 5 Oct 2019, Gerd Petermann wrote:
Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2019 13:31:09 +
From: Gerd Petermann
Reply-To: Development list for mkgmap
To: Development list for mkgmap
Subject: Re: [mkgmap-dev] Turn Restrictions using three ways - design guide
for OSM mappers?
Hi blc,
there are already normal restrictions [1] which look correct to me, so as I
said before this one is obsolete. I think it should be removed.
Besides that I would not add restrictions without local knowledge or other
allowed sources.
Gerd
[1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3843893
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3843894
Von: mkgmap-dev im Auftrag von blc
Gesendet: Samstag, 5. Oktober 2019 08:53
An: Development list for mkgmap
Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] Turn Restrictions using three ways - design guide for
OSM mappers?
Gerd,
Thanks for the reply.
So it looks like it's still being handled, but would you say that these
should be changed in OSM?
It seems a bit strange that if you're on way A, you must travel through
way B and get to way C, but indeed it is true that if you weren't allowed
to make any turn at the point between A and B (and B and C), you'd get the
same result -- is this the prefered way of denoting such?
For this particular example in OSM I suspect the mapper did not
want to allow right turns at the intersection (even if it's not
illegal) and hence wrote the restriction as an only left way-way-way
instead of a way-point-way no right turn, perhaps because of either a sign
or the paintings on the road and you can't make an "only left turn" on the
first intersection of the dual carriageway because that's the wrong
direction.
How should this particular intersection be restricted from travel to not
emit warnings? Adding that no right turn at the first intersection
would probably have the effect, but I've seen a lot of these way-way-ways
around (mostly dealing with complex dual carriageway intersections between
multiple roads) and wonder if it's worth "fixing" them, or should these
warnings be simply ignored for the most part?
Thanks!
On Sat, 5 Oct 2019, Gerd Petermann wrote:
Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2019 05:43:56 +
From: Gerd Petermann
Reply-To: Development list for mkgmap
To: "mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk"
Subject: Re: [mkgmap-dev] Turn Restrictions using three ways - design guide
for OSM mappers?
Hi blc,
the code that produces these warnings is this:
if (valid && !viaWays.isEmpty() &&
restriction.startsWith("only")){
log.warn(messagePrefix, "check: 'via' way(s) are used
in",restriction,"restriction");
}
So, mkgmap considers them valid, but dubious. I think that's what they are. The
restriction says something like
"when you want to travel from way A via way B to way C you MUST travel from A via B
to C"
What kind of restriction is that? In my eyes, the given example is completely
obsolete.
On the other hand, a "no-" restriction with via way(s) means
It is not allowed to go from A to C via B. This cannot be expressed with a
single via node.
Hope that helps?
Gerd
Von: mkgmap-dev im Auftrag von blc
Gesendet: Samstag, 5. Oktober 2019 06:31
An: mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk
Betreff: [mkgmap-dev] Turn Restrictions using three ways - design guide for
OSM mappers?
Hello, I thank all who have been working on this neat program to allow our
otherwise old Garmins sit in the dust heap when we can't afford to
subscribe to new maps.
I've been trying to improve the quality of OSM by fixing the errors
that mkgmap emits, which a lot of times mirrors what's seen in
KeepRight. However there's one variant of turn restriction I've noticed
that warns in mkgmap but do not show up in KeepRight (and iD seems to
understand this type of turn restriction) - the way-way-way type
restriction where three connected ways are in series for non no-u-turn
restrictions.
example:
Turn restriction (only_left_turn) 2256354 (at
https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=47.777585&mlon=-122.319488&zoom=17)
check: 'via' way(s) are used in only_left_turn restriction
The way-way-way type is the proper method for restricting u-turns
on dual ca
Re: [mkgmap-dev] Turn Restrictions using three ways - design guide for OSM mappers?
Hi blc,
there are already normal restrictions [1] which look correct to me, so as I
said before this one is obsolete. I think it should be removed.
Besides that I would not add restrictions without local knowledge or other
allowed sources.
Gerd
[1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3843893
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3843894
Von: mkgmap-dev im Auftrag von blc
Gesendet: Samstag, 5. Oktober 2019 08:53
An: Development list for mkgmap
Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] Turn Restrictions using three ways - design guide for
OSM mappers?
Gerd,
Thanks for the reply.
So it looks like it's still being handled, but would you say that these
should be changed in OSM?
It seems a bit strange that if you're on way A, you must travel through
way B and get to way C, but indeed it is true that if you weren't allowed
to make any turn at the point between A and B (and B and C), you'd get the
same result -- is this the prefered way of denoting such?
For this particular example in OSM I suspect the mapper did not
want to allow right turns at the intersection (even if it's not
illegal) and hence wrote the restriction as an only left way-way-way
instead of a way-point-way no right turn, perhaps because of either a sign
or the paintings on the road and you can't make an "only left turn" on the
first intersection of the dual carriageway because that's the wrong
direction.
How should this particular intersection be restricted from travel to not
emit warnings? Adding that no right turn at the first intersection
would probably have the effect, but I've seen a lot of these way-way-ways
around (mostly dealing with complex dual carriageway intersections between
multiple roads) and wonder if it's worth "fixing" them, or should these
warnings be simply ignored for the most part?
Thanks!
On Sat, 5 Oct 2019, Gerd Petermann wrote:
> Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2019 05:43:56 +
> From: Gerd Petermann
> Reply-To: Development list for mkgmap
> To: "mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk"
> Subject: Re: [mkgmap-dev] Turn Restrictions using three ways - design guide
> for OSM mappers?
>
> Hi blc,
>
> the code that produces these warnings is this:
>if (valid && !viaWays.isEmpty() &&
> restriction.startsWith("only")){
>log.warn(messagePrefix, "check: 'via' way(s) are used
> in",restriction,"restriction");
>}
>
> So, mkgmap considers them valid, but dubious. I think that's what they are.
> The restriction says something like
> "when you want to travel from way A via way B to way C you MUST travel from A
> via B to C"
> What kind of restriction is that? In my eyes, the given example is completely
> obsolete.
> On the other hand, a "no-" restriction with via way(s) means
> It is not allowed to go from A to C via B. This cannot be expressed with a
> single via node.
>
> Hope that helps?
>
> Gerd
>
>
> Von: mkgmap-dev im Auftrag von blc
>
> Gesendet: Samstag, 5. Oktober 2019 06:31
> An: mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk
> Betreff: [mkgmap-dev] Turn Restrictions using three ways - design guide for
> OSM mappers?
>
> Hello, I thank all who have been working on this neat program to allow our
> otherwise old Garmins sit in the dust heap when we can't afford to
> subscribe to new maps.
>
> I've been trying to improve the quality of OSM by fixing the errors
> that mkgmap emits, which a lot of times mirrors what's seen in
> KeepRight. However there's one variant of turn restriction I've noticed
> that warns in mkgmap but do not show up in KeepRight (and iD seems to
> understand this type of turn restriction) - the way-way-way type
> restriction where three connected ways are in series for non no-u-turn
> restrictions.
>
>
> example:
>
> Turn restriction (only_left_turn) 2256354 (at
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=47.777585&mlon=-122.319488&zoom=17)
> check: 'via' way(s) are used in only_left_turn restriction
>
> The way-way-way type is the proper method for restricting u-turns
> on dual carriageway roads which is understood by mkgmap. On the
> other hand, iD and KeepRight it seems to be valid to do way-way-way
> instead of way-POINT-way for no/only left/right turn restrictions, no/only
> straight on restrictions, etc. I've seen a lot of the non no-u-turn
> way-way-way restrictions in the USA.
>
> These type of non no-u-turn restrictions seems to cause a warning in
> mkgmap and probably not translating them. My question is that should
> these be supported in mkgmap, or should these be fixe
Re: [mkgmap-dev] Turn Restrictions using three ways - design guide for OSM mappers?
Gerd,
Thanks for the reply.
So it looks like it's still being handled, but would you say that these
should be changed in OSM?
It seems a bit strange that if you're on way A, you must travel through
way B and get to way C, but indeed it is true that if you weren't allowed
to make any turn at the point between A and B (and B and C), you'd get the
same result -- is this the prefered way of denoting such?
For this particular example in OSM I suspect the mapper did not
want to allow right turns at the intersection (even if it's not
illegal) and hence wrote the restriction as an only left way-way-way
instead of a way-point-way no right turn, perhaps because of either a sign
or the paintings on the road and you can't make an "only left turn" on the
first intersection of the dual carriageway because that's the wrong
direction.
How should this particular intersection be restricted from travel to not
emit warnings? Adding that no right turn at the first intersection
would probably have the effect, but I've seen a lot of these way-way-ways
around (mostly dealing with complex dual carriageway intersections between
multiple roads) and wonder if it's worth "fixing" them, or should these
warnings be simply ignored for the most part?
Thanks!
On Sat, 5 Oct 2019, Gerd Petermann wrote:
Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2019 05:43:56 +
From: Gerd Petermann
Reply-To: Development list for mkgmap
To: "mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk"
Subject: Re: [mkgmap-dev] Turn Restrictions using three ways - design guide
for OSM mappers?
Hi blc,
the code that produces these warnings is this:
if (valid && !viaWays.isEmpty() &&
restriction.startsWith("only")){
log.warn(messagePrefix, "check: 'via' way(s) are used
in",restriction,"restriction");
}
So, mkgmap considers them valid, but dubious. I think that's what they are. The
restriction says something like
"when you want to travel from way A via way B to way C you MUST travel from A via B
to C"
What kind of restriction is that? In my eyes, the given example is completely
obsolete.
On the other hand, a "no-" restriction with via way(s) means
It is not allowed to go from A to C via B. This cannot be expressed with a
single via node.
Hope that helps?
Gerd
Von: mkgmap-dev im Auftrag von blc
Gesendet: Samstag, 5. Oktober 2019 06:31
An: mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk
Betreff: [mkgmap-dev] Turn Restrictions using three ways - design guide for
OSM mappers?
Hello, I thank all who have been working on this neat program to allow our
otherwise old Garmins sit in the dust heap when we can't afford to
subscribe to new maps.
I've been trying to improve the quality of OSM by fixing the errors
that mkgmap emits, which a lot of times mirrors what's seen in
KeepRight. However there's one variant of turn restriction I've noticed
that warns in mkgmap but do not show up in KeepRight (and iD seems to
understand this type of turn restriction) - the way-way-way type
restriction where three connected ways are in series for non no-u-turn
restrictions.
example:
Turn restriction (only_left_turn) 2256354 (at
https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=47.777585&mlon=-122.319488&zoom=17)
check: 'via' way(s) are used in only_left_turn restriction
The way-way-way type is the proper method for restricting u-turns
on dual carriageway roads which is understood by mkgmap. On the
other hand, iD and KeepRight it seems to be valid to do way-way-way
instead of way-POINT-way for no/only left/right turn restrictions, no/only
straight on restrictions, etc. I've seen a lot of the non no-u-turn
way-way-way restrictions in the USA.
These type of non no-u-turn restrictions seems to cause a warning in
mkgmap and probably not translating them. My question is that should
these be supported in mkgmap, or should these be fixed in OSM so that they
are simple way-via-way despite iD and KeepRight seem to claim them
valid? Or perhaps way-way-way is deprecated but still supported by OSM
but should be changed to way-point-way?
way-point-way = relation
from: some-street-way
via: some-intersection-point
to: some-street-way
(this is the most common type of turn restriction)
way-way-way = relation
from: some-street-way
via: some-street-way
to: some-street-way
(this is necessary specifically for dual carriageway u-turn restriction,
but it's used for other types as well which mkgmap complains about.)
Thanks for shedding some light on the discrepancy here! Note: I'm
currently depending on OpenMapChest data for mkgmap runs as my computer
and internet connection are not large or fast enough for the quantity of
data I'd like to work with.
___
mkgmap-dev maili
Re: [mkgmap-dev] Turn Restrictions using three ways - design guide for OSM mappers?
Hi blc,
the code that produces these warnings is this:
if (valid && !viaWays.isEmpty() &&
restriction.startsWith("only")){
log.warn(messagePrefix, "check: 'via' way(s) are used
in",restriction,"restriction");
}
So, mkgmap considers them valid, but dubious. I think that's what they are. The
restriction says something like
"when you want to travel from way A via way B to way C you MUST travel from A
via B to C"
What kind of restriction is that? In my eyes, the given example is completely
obsolete.
On the other hand, a "no-" restriction with via way(s) means
It is not allowed to go from A to C via B. This cannot be expressed with a
single via node.
Hope that helps?
Gerd
Von: mkgmap-dev im Auftrag von blc
Gesendet: Samstag, 5. Oktober 2019 06:31
An: mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk
Betreff: [mkgmap-dev] Turn Restrictions using three ways - design guide for
OSM mappers?
Hello, I thank all who have been working on this neat program to allow our
otherwise old Garmins sit in the dust heap when we can't afford to
subscribe to new maps.
I've been trying to improve the quality of OSM by fixing the errors
that mkgmap emits, which a lot of times mirrors what's seen in
KeepRight. However there's one variant of turn restriction I've noticed
that warns in mkgmap but do not show up in KeepRight (and iD seems to
understand this type of turn restriction) - the way-way-way type
restriction where three connected ways are in series for non no-u-turn
restrictions.
example:
Turn restriction (only_left_turn) 2256354 (at
https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=47.777585&mlon=-122.319488&zoom=17)
check: 'via' way(s) are used in only_left_turn restriction
The way-way-way type is the proper method for restricting u-turns
on dual carriageway roads which is understood by mkgmap. On the
other hand, iD and KeepRight it seems to be valid to do way-way-way
instead of way-POINT-way for no/only left/right turn restrictions, no/only
straight on restrictions, etc. I've seen a lot of the non no-u-turn
way-way-way restrictions in the USA.
These type of non no-u-turn restrictions seems to cause a warning in
mkgmap and probably not translating them. My question is that should
these be supported in mkgmap, or should these be fixed in OSM so that they
are simple way-via-way despite iD and KeepRight seem to claim them
valid? Or perhaps way-way-way is deprecated but still supported by OSM
but should be changed to way-point-way?
way-point-way = relation
from: some-street-way
via: some-intersection-point
to: some-street-way
(this is the most common type of turn restriction)
way-way-way = relation
from: some-street-way
via: some-street-way
to: some-street-way
(this is necessary specifically for dual carriageway u-turn restriction,
but it's used for other types as well which mkgmap complains about.)
Thanks for shedding some light on the discrepancy here! Note: I'm
currently depending on OpenMapChest data for mkgmap runs as my computer
and internet connection are not large or fast enough for the quantity of
data I'd like to work with.
___
mkgmap-dev mailing list
mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk
http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
___
mkgmap-dev mailing list
mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk
http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
