On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 at 11:17, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
[editors and/or mappers]
I think some separate a way and insert a new roundabout .. the new
> roundabout does not go into the relations.
>
This is the sort of problem that iD could cause, a year or two ago. You
could delete or
Richard Fairhurst :
> Kenny:
> > I do want editors minimally to observe the 'don't break the route'
> > principle. About 80% of the broken-route problem can be solved
> > simply by, "when splitting a way, both the pieces become members
> > of any route relations in which the original way
On 20/08/19 18:38, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Kevin Kenny wrote:
There's also something to be said for using the ugly editors to
prove the concept, because at this point, we don't yet know how
to do everything, much less how to make it novice-friendly! The
exception is simple linear routes, and
That is exactly what I described: you have a route i.e. a chain of ways to
follow. But OsmAnd cannot do that! It can access the route and show it on
the map, but it does not use it for navigation. So you have to first turn
it into a string of points (gpx), losing the connection to the map and the
Kevin Kenny wrote:
> There's also something to be said for using the ugly editors to
> prove the concept, because at this point, we don't yet know how
> to do everything, much less how to make it novice-friendly! The
> exception is simple linear routes, and Sarah or I can give you
> algorithms
I would like to briefly add my opinion on the sorting of relations question:
To be clear: my experience is mostly with short roundtrip hiking/walking
relations in Flanders
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Belgium/Local_Walking_Routes_Flanders#Local_Walking_Routes_in_Flanders).
On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 01:00:47 +0200, Peter Elderson wrote:
> The osm route IS the route, and it should be usable as is, without redoing
> the routing.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but couldn't you do that in OsmAnd? Take the
GPX from a hiking route and import in Osmand. Set your
And that is a reason why routes can be nested, so you can use the sections as
routes of their own. I would still like to know how else to feed an OSM-route
to a garmin or app if not by converting it to gpx so it can reroute along the
points in the track to produce exactly the original route.
The longest local route to me that I have worked on is over 5,000 km
long. I am certain that would not fit on my GPS as a route using this
method.
To reduce the gpx file it would be better to use the nodes where the
route changes from one way to another or where the way ends/starts. This
That is what I do, and what an growing number of hiking people do: turn a
route into a gpx, load the gpx into an app or device, which then routes
along the gpx using all the nodes as waypoints. It works, and it recreates
the exact route if the map is exctly the same as the original. And if the
gpx
> Volker Schmidt het volgende geschreven:
>
>> On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 at 15:40, Peter Elderson wrote:
>> Ideally, you should not have to create gpx-s from them and you should need
>> no ordering or routing at all, because they ARE the routes. An app or
>> gps-device should use them as is, just
sent from a phone
> On 19. Aug 2019, at 17:01, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>
> (I have elided most of the intermediate steps.)
and a lot of preparatory steps: you need to buy a computer, find a wall outlet
to plug it in, find the power button, find an internet provider and subscribe
to a
On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 at 15:40, Peter Elderson wrote:
> Ideally, you should not have to create gpx-s from them and you should need
> no ordering or routing at all, because they ARE the routes. An app or
> gps-device should use them as is, just tell the user what to do next. Since
> no app
Andy Townsend :
> On 19/08/2019 17:21, Peter Elderson wrote:
>
> the only way for the likes of me is to use detection tools and
> maintenance tools to order data by hand at the mapping level, so ordinary
> people can use waymarkedtrails to get usable linear gpx-s for their
> basecamps, route
OK, I have fixed my fair share of route relations, both public transport
and bicycle and foot routes.
I find it easier to EDIT them, when they are sorted. To figure out there
are problems with them, when they are sorted. JOSM actually does a great
job with the sorting. For bicycle, foot and horse
On 19/08/2019 17:21, Peter Elderson wrote:
the only way for the likes of me is to use detection tools and
maintenance tools to order data by hand at the mapping level, so
ordinary people can use waymarkedtrails to get usable linear gpx-s for
their basecamps, route editors, trip planners,
Richard Fairhurst :
> On mobile, on train, apologies for lack of formatting. :)
>
> Sarah - the problem is that when you say “one single simple
> instruction to the mapper: sort your route“, the instruction might be
> simple
> but carrying it out isn’t.
>
> Let’s say we have a cyclist, new to
On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 11:10 AM Paul Allen wrote:
> And say what you like about Warthogs being ugly, the Fairchild Republic A-10
> Thunderbolt II (aka Warthog) was a very effective war plane, both in kill
> power and
> survivability. Please don't make JOSM's UI seem better than it is by
>
On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 11:02 AM Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> Let’s say we have a cyclist, new to OSM, who wants to add a newly opened
> section to an existing route. As Peter says, doing this to said
> specification “usually requires lots of JOSM”. The steps involved to do this
> in sorted order
On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 at 16:02, Richard Fairhurst
wrote:
Let’s say we have a cyclist, new to OSM, who wants to add a newly opened
> section to an existing route. As Peter says, doing this to said
> specification “usually requires lots of JOSM”. The steps involved to do
> this
> in sorted order
On mobile, on train, apologies for lack of formatting. :)
Sarah - the problem is that when you say “one single simple
instruction to the mapper: sort your route“, the instruction might be simple
but carrying it out isn’t.
Let’s say we have a cyclist, new to OSM, who wants to add a newly opened
You can't seem to let go of your routing. The routes in OSM represent
routes that are already there. They are sequences of ways to follow in the
order given, not sequences of points to route to.
Ideally, you should not have to create gpx-s from them and you should need
no ordering or routing at
Maybe it's the summer heat, or my age, but I still don't get the essential
step in both Sarah's and Peter's reasoning.
Let's assume that for hiking and cycling type relations I do have all
component ways in some, generally agreed, -sequence in the database.
How do I get this information out of the
On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 10:50:05AM +0200, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 at 09:47, Sarah Hoffmann wrote:
>
> Assuming we don't care what happens to really botched relations, all cases
> > except one that I listed initially are covered with one single simple
> > instruction to the
On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 at 09:47, Sarah Hoffmann wrote:
Assuming we don't care what happens to really botched relations, all cases
> except one that I listed initially are covered with one single simple
> instruction to the mapper: sort your route.
>
I strongly disagree with this advice, at least
On Sun, 18 Aug 2019 at 18:26, Richard Fairhurst
wrote:
> I'd fully agree on roles. The use of 'alternate' and 'forward'/'reverse'
> roles for bike route relations dates back to the earliest days of bike
> route
> mapping in OSM and is well established by now.
>
I suppose this is a typo:
It
On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 09:25:01AM -0700, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> But just as long established in OSM is the principle that - since mappers
> are our most precious resource - we optimise for the mapper, not for ease of
> consumption. Allowing relations to be unsorted is an example of that. If a
Kevin Kenny :
>
>> On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 3:31 PM Peter Elderson wrote:
>> I'm afraid testing is all I can offer. I could list problems to detect, but
>> I think I would not be telling you news. Very important: handle nested
>> relations (hierarchies). RA currently does not.
>
> Uhm, yeah,
On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 3:31 PM Peter Elderson wrote:
> I'm afraid testing is all I can offer. I could list problems to detect, but I
> think I would not be telling you news. Very important: handle nested
> relations (hierarchies). RA currently does not.
Uhm, yeah, that's a problem. For what
Richard Fairhurst :
> Sarah Hoffman wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 17, 2019 at 01:11:17AM -0700, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> > > Peter Elderson wrote:
> > > > The point is, as it is it's not good enough for data use besides
> > > > rendering. you can't rely on route relations for anything but
> >
Sarah Hoffman wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 17, 2019 at 01:11:17AM -0700, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> > Peter Elderson wrote:
> > > The point is, as it is it's not good enough for data use besides
> > > rendering. you can't rely on route relations for anything but
> rendering
> >
> > Once again: pretty
sent from a phone
> On 18. Aug 2019, at 14:43, Paul Allen wrote:
>
> Maybe
> we shouldn't ever insist that mappers sort the routes they add, but I don't
> think
> we should discourage them if they want to put in that effort.
+1, this is my opinion as well. Sorted routes make it usually
On Sun, 18 Aug 2019 at 10:01, Sarah Hoffmann wrote:
>
> I have no issue if relations require reasonable processing to get to a
> result
> but I would like to see enough information encoded in the route relation
> that
> the processing invariably gets me to the result that the mapper intended.
>
On Sat, Aug 17, 2019 at 01:11:17AM -0700, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> Peter Elderson wrote:
> > I would like to see this software in operation! Could you give me the
> > links of some applications
>
> I use my code in the backend of cycle.travel. It's not open source. I've
> seen code used by
Again, software can not handle e.g. the E2 relation. Simple sort, fine,
bridge a small gap, handle a roundabout, fine, but not the more serious
route-breaking issues. You can't expect Garmin to solve that, it's a data
issue in OSM. Currently the only way to solve it is making the data
flawless:
In this case, I do NOT want to go from A to B. I want to do the hike, that
is the route, exactly as it is specified OSM. Those ways, in the exact
order. I want my smartphone or garmin to guide me exactly along those ways,
which were carefully picked when the route was entered into OSM.
If that
I agree with Andy Townsend here.
Routes are complicated enough without needing to be always perfectly
sorted. Software developers and database users should make up for
this. Mapping is hard and takes precious human time. Computational
cycles are cheap.
OSM has never been designed to be used
> You want to do the routing. I want to avoid that, because the routing has already been done. To be clear, I want to navigate from where I currently am to where
Your viewpoint is different from mine. You want to do the routing. I want
to avoid that, because the routing has already been done. The OSM-relation
IS a route. It is entered as an exact chain of ways to folllow.
OsmAnd and Garmin should take the route itself, not waypoints to route to.
It is odd
> apps like OsmAnd, Garmin devices, and planner applicationsI can answer the Garmin bit of that, as it's something that I do all the time.Firstly, the ability to
The sequence of the component ways in a walking/hiking route relation is
irrelevant for a hiker who use a navigation device to walk along the route.
Why?
How do you walk a walking route with a navigation device?
Basically you have two options:
A) you have prepared beforehand a GPX track, typically
I would like to use walking route relations as they are in OSM, in apps
like OsmAnd, Garmin devices, and planner applications. Currently, you
can't. As far as I can see, they all re-route instead of using an already
available route (= chain of ways). I would like to see unbroken elevation
You haven't answered the question - I asked "Where are you going from and where are you going to?" in order to try and understand what real-life problem you're trying to solve. "I would like the ways of a relation to be sorted" is not a real-life problem. What navigation software are you using
Op za 17 aug. 2019 om 12:31 schreef Andy Townsend :
> > but I would like to see one make a plausible navigation route out of the
> E2 Yorkshire relation as it is now.
>
> Where are you going from and where are you going to? Without that
> information "make a plausible navigation route out of the
The issue here is that these relations are there, they conform to current
wiki documentation, but you can't simply use them in applications other
then for rendering. Some of the issues (sorting, bridge simple gaps) may be
solved with software at the data user's side, but on the whole you can't
> but I would like to see one make a plausible navigation route out of the E2
> Yorkshire relation as it is now.
Where are you going from and where are you going to? Without that information
"make a plausible navigation route out of the E2 Yorkshire relation" makes no
sense.
You could
Two routes, currently mapped together in one relation, but also containing
subrelations, and not in the right order, and the total of that is part of a
higher relation which also has variants. You can’t blame the route designers,
you simply have to accommodate the real life variations. For
On 17/08/2019 07:28, Peter Elderson wrote:
Gpx gaps in some software do show up as straight lines. If it's just a
missing piece and the rest is in order, no problem. In the case of the
E2 in Yorkshire, lots of straight lines. Feed that to a navigation
device and it will have you start in
Peter Elderson wrote:
> I would like to see this software in operation! Could you give me the
> links of some applications
I use my code in the backend of cycle.travel. It's not open source. I've
seen code used by one other OSM-based site and there's a further one that's
clearly using something
I know how to fix these issues. The point is, as it is it's not good
enough for data use besides rendering. you can't rely on route relations
for anything but rendering, and you can't fix that with software. It's not
a tagging issue, though.
Gpx gaps in some software do show up as straight
My limited experience;
Gaps on the gpx route tend to be straight lines, ok when they are
contiguous but where they back track it gets confusing.
Some initial thoughts on what I would do, and have done on some routes
of interest to me ...
On 16/08/19 21:31, Peter Elderson wrote:
Looked at
I would like to see this software in operation! Could you give me the links
of some applications that can reorder and use route relations with multiple
gaps, duplicate ways, branches, loose loops, uncut roundabouts, pedestrian
areas, nodes and nested relations? It's not about just unsorted, it's
Peter Elderson wrote:
> I think it's fair to say there is almost no software that does
> anything with route relations except rendering and exporting
> as a gpx.
That's not true. Most bike routers based on OSM are aware of route relations
and use them to influence routing.
> Software needs a
On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 1:40 PM s8evq wrote:
> Just to be clear: are you still talking about hiking/walking routes? Or
> public transport? Because, as far as I know, there is no clear explanation in
> the wiki why forward/backward should be used in hiking routes.
I had one locally where the
On Fri, 16 Aug 2019 09:54:01 +0200, Jo wrote:
> > By doing that, you're basically saying that alternatives can't have
> forward/backward roles. To me that doesn't make sense. We are using those
> forward/backward roles to indicate that there are 2 branches for each
> direction of travel along
Op vr 16 aug. 2019 om 10:59 schreef Andy Townsend :
> On 16/08/2019 08:50, Peter Elderson wrote:
> > Josm of course. Is there another relation editor that can handle large
> nested route relations spanning up to say 4000 Km?
>
> P2 can, at least. Other people seem to suggest that iD does a
>
On 16/08/2019 08:50, Peter Elderson wrote:
Josm of course. Is there another relation editor that can handle large nested
route relations spanning up to say 4000 Km?
P2 can, at least. Other people seem to suggest that iD does a
reasonable job now too.
The more interesting question, though,
Both! If I enter a new route or alter it after survey, I often have to edit
ways. Cutting a way into sections, mostly. After a painful process of
making other people very unhappy, I finally know how to handle/repair all
the broken relations that causes, before uploading.
At the same time I notice
Peter, I think Martin's question comes from a misunderstanding. You
probably meant the route relations were broken by someone editing before
you. Martin seems to have understood that you have to check all those route
relations, after you edited them yourself.
Jo
On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 9:52 AM
On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 1:57 PM Sarah Hoffmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> (making this a new topic)
>
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 11:56:30AM +0200, Peter Elderson wrote:
> > I strongly prefer to have one relation for the main route, and separate
> relations for alternatives. Put those together in a relation
Josm of course. Is there another relation editor that can handle large nested
route relations spanning up to say 4000 Km? In josm, before the edit I open all
the relations that may be affected, check if they are correct as far as that
section is concerned, then perform the edit, then apply the
sent from a phone
> On 16. Aug 2019, at 00:20, Peter Elderson wrote:
>
> Not seldom I have to check and repair 10-15 route relations after one edit
> (most often a split of a way to allow a route to attach there) on the map.
which editing software do you use?
Cheers Martin
Software needs a sorted or easily sortable relation. Currently, no software can
handle sorting when the routes get broken. Routes with forward and backward
roles don’t sort properly either. Routes get broken very easily all the time.
Now the combine and sort routine waymarkedtrails uses when
On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 04:50:26PM +0200, Peter Elderson wrote:
> Sarah:
> > There is relatively few software that can handle hierarchic relations.
> One could argue that putting alternatives in separate relations makes it
> actually harder to access those.
>
> I think it's fair to say there is
Sarah:
> There is relatively few software that can handle hierarchic relations.
One could argue that putting alternatives in separate relations makes it
actually harder to access those.
I think it's fair to say there is almost no software that does anything
with route relations except rendering
Hi,
(making this a new topic)
On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 11:56:30AM +0200, Peter Elderson wrote:
> I strongly prefer to have one relation for the main route, and separate
> relations for alternatives. Put those together in a relation with roles for
> the member relations, not for individual ways.
66 matches
Mail list logo
